Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 20, 2001
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 29, 1969
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4.pdf32.18 MB
ClA,Rd0%4)R000300140006-4 a!1'W YUQpprovq.cj,,fr Release 2001/08/28: space How Satellit s U, cover Top Secrets Two spacecraft, one' em- ` Stumbling Block Removed the other USAF, re-entered the earth's atmosphere earlier V d onth to splash into a sea mystery. T,ey were not displayed on D reams of press releases, in ifficT. nothing was said about the etllri letion of the missions of Tie spacecraft. Yet their descents were f6- Ipw0d by batteries of r.,adars d - =yed around the world by to nited States and the Soviet ?.' d +1, f nd I' ce a im a "bons in recent months that on- ttti6 one of the key stumbling blocks to a disarma- 7ftCt pact between the two na- tions, might not be necessary -because of the success that spy satellites have had in examining the defenses of both sides. Statesmen and generals on both sides, including former President Johnson and former Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khru- shchev, have boasted that the data obtained by the spy-in-the- pt sky satellites have laid bare the o'f an Pacific for the American s acd'-` best kept military secrets of craft, last Monday over th So: both countries. Mr. Khrushchev, the no ed b l h viet Union for the Russian, `were chalked up on status boards of space defense command posts in both countries. y y o was sore y an w naissance satellites over the So- viet Union, once jokingly of- Both sides knew that theX tares with President Kennedy spacecraft, the Soviet Cosmos but only after the Soviet sys- 286 and the American Air 1~ orc6 item had gone into operation. Agena D, were spy satellites ----Soviet spy satellites such as that had been photographing tens of thousands of square Cosmos 286 are launched from miles of the other country's ter- 'eosmodromes near Plesetsk, 500 ritory. The high resolution cam- miles north of Moscow, and eras aboard both craft sn ~. ped Tyuratam, the Soviet equivalent hundreds of pictures of missile of Cape Kennedy on the Aral launching sites, submarine pens, "Sea. They are launched at an ftittrittlons factories and air- angle of 65 degrees above the fields. equator, which takes them over These secret vehicles were the entire North American land but two of the more than 400 mass on altitudes ranging from 90 military satellites that have been to 225 miles. Most of the launched by the two great pow- military Cosmos flights - the Cosmos label also is applied to during the last 10 years, a ets scientific missions - are eight decade in which more m113 ary to 16 days long. spacecraft have been lau?lched than those designed for scientific The Russians retrieve their uses_ of space. film packages by bringing the spacecraft back to earth. The United States has two methods of recovering film: Ejecting it from orbiting spacecraft in con- tainers called cassettes which float to earth by parachute and are picked up over the Pacific by specially equipped planes trailing snag lines; and retriev- ing the entire photographic and sensing systems the same way. The first American spy satel- lite, called Samos, was launched in 1960 and was dutifully cele- brated in an Air Force press release. But by the following year the Air Force stopped mak- ing routine announcements of Samos launchings and pretended that they did not exist, although about 70 have been put into orbit since. Another version is the Project 770 series which uses an Agena spacecraft containing a radar antenna that can look ahead and to either side to map large swatches of terrain. Its radar microwaves can penetrate clouds so that the system can operate even if the target is obscured by bad weather. A different class of military satellite is of the Project 823 and Midas series which carry instruments sensitive to heat, ultraviolet and X-rays and are used to detect nuclear explosions and missile exhausts. Another group of Amet ican spy satellites is equipped with electronic eavesdropping gear that monitors Soviet and Chi- nese military radio channels and radar frequencies. According to one report, these are able to turn on from space ground- based transmitters of other countries which normally are switched off when the satellite is orbiting overhead. A newer military spacecraft, which first was launched last year, is dubbed IS for integrated satellite. It carries still cameras, television equipment and instru- ments that. can detect infrared radiation which could disclose underground factories or mis- sile launching sites. The high sophistication of the IS satellites may have doomed the Air Force's manned orbit- ing laboratory, or, MOL pro- gram, which was cancelled ear- lier this month. In making the announcement, David Packard, Deputy Secretary of Defense, said that MOL was dropped in part because of "advances in automated techniques for un- manned satellite systems," in other words spy-in-the-sky satellites. -RICHARD D. LYONS Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 NEW YORK TIMES AIR FORCE PLANS FOR ORBITING LAB engeti80r//2 wWre ?irojo t, t e Air Force has 1o5t the major part of its role in so e acand is relegated to the operation-off Unmanned and un- publicized satellites. After a brief, routine debate, the House rejected by a vice vote an amendment by Repre sentative Edward I. Koch, Democrat of Manhattan, that --- would have removed $20 miI- IS Called Major lion from NASA's mannd` CanC MOP Step'in Cutting the Budget for Military Spending Project for Manned Station Had Cost $f'.3- Billion-Duplication Charged DATE tl7V0V 'fhat_ the military -budge wras Isnomizers in the Senate was MOL project. !%n keeping with the spirit snd intent of these reviews, the MOL cancellation will be a ma- jor step in reducing the budg- et," the announcement said. < xiwhe cancellation, however, through lack of direction outragfeous" for Congress 'le space flight "in the light o the urgent economic and soy, problems faced by people on earth." Supporters of the Koch ffie dment noted regrettully AMN-W. FINNEY tat to Tb New York TImel WA$TWIGTON, June 10- The Defense 1'7epartment, after itperiding $1.U-Billion on the je t, canceted today the Air orce's nlannfd orbiting lab- ElratQi ' progrim as "a major step" towar(T reducing- the q'iilitary budget. stat anent rea y Deputy befense Secretary Savid Packar2C at a Pen?ta ri . flews conference, the a enSe Veperrft ie t s Ad the prTdipat easor for cdbceling tide Air E orce's many ed space ~fli i= 7rogram was' he "urgency reducing Federal c'1"efen-se spending." The canoe tion 'wal ai' flounced sho ly before tie House; by a ' 28-to-52 rolica1 vote, appro't legislation -au- jboriz pg a $ .9 billion ' udgef for- the--National Aeronautics and S , e administration in e scat year. About 'w ..Zl gy would o t'or :Tstpm`entm o a mre worked on inde they Force. nt Rejecte i', ill, authorizes $ it Abe House spent consider- more time and emotion pendment by Representat;4e ~. ~_ .. lican of Indiana, specifyi only the United States placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts. biting laboratory program-or IMOL, as it came to be 'thin the Pentagon-was ide- ch as conducting reconnais- oeof the earth or inspection pf. potentially hostile space- craft. Duplication Charged In recent years there have %en rising complaints in Con- ss=and privately +fli lthin some civilian space cirl;ies= f:that the MOL project aiupli- agency's manned space t program. ve been rejected by the _ i- tagon and, at least publicl.. , by the space agency. Their sic rebuttal has been that the OL f program would carry out'cep and the post-Apollo space sta- tion program now planned by the space agency. I ltlixon Adminjstra on, with mdst of the increase going for manned space flight and the development Apollo spacecraft into an orbit- ink laboratory. wFnt brought the cancellation about was the rising pressure ht``Congress for a reduction in &I A@N01/08/Z foresight there is consider- waste in the Pentagon's ns development pro-I gams. i$1.3-billion spent on the MOS. project will now be added, to the $9.3-billion-according to Pentagon figures - that has been spent since 1951 on major weapons programs. that were later abandoned. According to an estimate made by senator Stuart Symington, Democrat of Missouri, in the Senate, the to- comes closer to $23-billion. One of the reasons given by the Pentagon for the cancella- ,:t in of the program was the ad- vances that have been made in rg~ent years in automated, un- manned satellites for such pur- poses as navigation, communi- cations and meteorology. Not mentioned by the Pentagon were the rapid strides that have been made in using satellites for detailed photographic recon- naissance. First conceived of by the Air Force in the early nineteen-six- ties, the MOL project was the. consolation prize given the Air Force after the civilian space agency was created and given the primary responsibility for conducting the nation's manned space flight program. Initially, as its competitor to the space agency's manned I space flight programs, the Air (Force had the DynaSoar project to develop a manned "space glider." When the DynaSoar project was terminated in 1963 after an expenditure of $405-I million, Defense Secretary Rob-, eft S. McNamara gave the Air Force permission to proceed with the MOL. The cancellation came as the project, after many delays, was Iapproaching the .flight test stage of unmanned components. PAGE WALL STREET JOURNAL Drn ipd F Spy Planes' Role Experts Say Aircraft Get, Data -Unobtainable With Other Methods Crewmen Analyze Electronic Signals to Assess Strength Of Potential U.S. Enemies The Limitations of Satellites By ROBERT KEATLEY Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON - The lumbering U.S. spy plane that North Korea downed "with one shot" earlier this week-perhaps as a bloody birthday present for that harsh land's Stalinist dictator, Kim 11-sung-was on an intelligence mission still too complex for space age satel- lites to handle alone. Its primary mission: To learn everything possible about what Pentagon experts call a potential enemy's "electronic order of battle." Though some spy satellites (notably a mu. persecret one tagged "Ferret") engage in sim- ilar snooping, military intelligence officials be- lieve they need more detailed information than Is currently available from space vehicles that do their prying safely from 100 miles or so above the earth. "This kind of work takes de- tailed, painstaking, day-after-day work and re- quires human minds and hands and eyes to do correctly," says a Pentagon source. Analyzing the electronic order of battle in, volves tedious recording of all obtainable infor- mation about a potential foe's radar, radio, missile guidance and other electronic systems. What electromagnetic frequencies are used, what locations have equipment, what ranges this gear has and what command and control , system ties them together are among the facts 1efit*h1; A ' pfcai Mission The data are specific and practical, in a milttar sense. Experts here offer an example, probably not so hypothetical, of the value of in- formation Obtained about North Korea. Becau a weather is often bad in that north- erh ciima, various electronic landing systems have been installed at North Korea's military ing Just how well this equipment works is valu- able t6 American military men. If, for exam- ple, hostilities broke out between the two Ko- reas (Pyongyang continually blusters about "liberating" the south), and bad weather brought visibility in the north down to, say, 300 feet, could Premier Kim's planes function? The old, slow-moving Lockheed aircraft that patrol if the Korean coast st w.rowi4 gi~jh 20,090 feet are ssu~ p+posed to find answers to sudb que'li'tions Gonatantiy reqprdin i 0 ort ..ssy lfd X14 9, w g patterns in varying weather conditions, DATE 1% 4*, (c'( PAGE px - s caps ifi es. This involves study lar signals again and again, looking for tions that h indicate that and qiiip $n recently intailed It is this sort of detailed surveillance, in- volving, instant analysis by electronic experts as signals are received, which experts say makes the lonely patrols of the unarmed spy planes still necessary. Defense Secretary Mel- vin Laird affirmed this view yesterday when he said the lost plane was on "an assignment essential to U.S. security." Help for SAC Knowing precisely the conditions under which the other side's planes can function Is just one example of the information the Strate- gic Air Command uses in its endless revision of operating plans, according to a man with ex- tensive experience in Government intelligence at senior levels. "SAC worries constantly about penetration of enemy defenses," he says. "So it wants to update its knowledge of them contin- ually-what radars are there, what missiles, how they are operated, what communications systems are used." If an attack ever were or- dered, military tacticians would need such data to decide how to avoid, jam or destroy the defenses. Using satellites, the expert continues, is not as easy or always as reliable in such detailed operations. The spy planes contain some six tons of electronic equipment, which is more than a space vehicle can carry, and all this gear enables them to perform a wider variety of specific snooping jobs. In addition, a satel- lite may go dead because of battery failure or other breakdown. Its radio signals sent earth- ward for American experts to analyze may be intercepted by the other side, thus disclosing the limits of U.S. satellite intelligence. If the satellite is of a type that carries its data back to earth, failure to retrieve its equipmentilp,den nose cone upon reentry may wipe out all he 'In- formation gathered in space. Manned airplane missions "may be. cut back as satellites become more advanced," the intelligence authority says, "but it is still not possible to replace all the flights with auto- .was reconnoitering after intruding deep into the territorial air of the noirtherp,half of the republic." It claims the North Korean air force "scored the brilliant battle success of shooting it down with a single shot at a high altitude." This may refer to a missile launched from a North Korean MIG. Just why this plane was downed remains a mystery. The flights have been averaging two a day for months without incident. Unlike the Pueblo, the reconnaissance planes have not gone near Korean territory, the Pentagon claims. But experts offer this grisly explana- tion in all seriousness : April 15 was Premier Kim's 57th birthday, and he may have decided the occasion was suitable for another blow at the Americans, who absorbed the Pueblo seiz- ure without striking back. "This was premeditation-no doubt about it," says one analyst. "Kim supports the Che Guevara thesis about fighting the capitalists- every little country should do Its bit. They probably scheduled the attack for that day knowing exactly what they could bag." Shooting down the patrol plane will proba- bly be hailed as a great victory for Premier Kim, who left Korea at age 13 lived in China and Russia and didn't return until the Soviet army drove out the Japanese in 1945. His hard-line Stalinist rule has been marked by bloody purges of former comrades and sus. pected rivals. Niceties of international law, es- pecially where American military craft are concerned, get short shrift from his regime. The attack may have been ordered to bol- ster Premier Kim's prestige both at home and abroad. North Korean economic progress has come slowly; its "flying horse" development scheme has been mostly earthbound. Perhaps there has been some discreet grumbling about the high cost of defense: Kim pours nearly 25% of 2.7 billion gross national product ill, , military uses. Though the population is Both the Air Force and the Navy conduct such flights around much of the ComfWuniit world. They have become so routine, in fact, that the Pentagon acknowledges ordering 190 of them over the northern Sea of Japan during the first three months of this year. "Lawful" Flights "Reconnaissance missions of this type have been flown for more than 20 years," an official U.S. statement says. "Each of these missions constitutes a lawful use of international` air- space." ' Navy planes are under strict order's to re- main more than 40 miles from North Korea; for some reason, this particular flight had'spe- eific instructions to remain at least %" miles from the rugged coastline. "From a variety of sources some of them sensitive, we are able to confirm that at all times during its mission the aircraft was far outside any claimed territorial airspace of North Korea," the Defense ''Depart- ment says. (Pyongyang's airspace claim is ap- parently the same as its claim regarding terri- torial water-12 miles from land.) A Russian ship picked up debris about 85 miles from the nearest piece of North Korea, die TIoWSW , Pyog9y M :vi7foAclairis The 'Pco6n4R000300140006-4 naissance plane of the insolent U.S. imperialist WASHINGAp:1 f'or ReleaseM4Ql.M8/28`- CI P74 0.Of 4R00030014000.f1-A(.iE SuivietTarget Shooting In Outer Space Hinted By George C Wilson waehin&ton i'oat Statt Writer Russia apparently has been riding ?soL'wte cofnplicated target mooting in outer space-per- ha is with the idea of develop- in gg a system for knocking do Nn American satellites in tts. Government's "Satel- ituation Report," which rar can see whirling around th crth. d 252-blew up while eltite orbiting some 300 bone the earth. lpn-nuclear explosions awe been designed to e, practicality of destroy- a crisis. ited States, against that the space log indi- s -that their rockets blew t satellite inspectors is the 'makes Cosmos 249 and .no -w look like more than in space, an old Air Force idea named. BAMBI for ballistic missile boost intercept. The idea was to catch an ICBM shortly after its launch. High Pentagon officials in charge of antisatellite efforts have declined to discuss the mysterious Soviet shots. This same official silence cloaked the Soviet FOBS (fractional orbital bombardment system) shots before the Government acknowledged them. But defense officials did state that the .Soviet shots give no cause for alarm. Both the United States and Soviet Union are conducting military space experiments all the time. Latest figures from in-. formed sources show the Rus- sians are stepping up their military space program. They staged 42 military launches in 1968 compared to 37 in 1967 and 2.4 in 1960, . This upward trend compares to a downward oqe" the United States, with 34 military launches in 1966, 2 6" ' ini 19d1 and 22 in 1968. But t'he Soviet' U.S. comparison is not direct since the,U S. Air Force often, puts up several military pay, loads in one launch. As for our own ant sateellite efforts, former Defense Secre. tary Robert S. McNamara told Congress in secret session last year that "we are elcloring the development of a Or-nu- clear surveillance or't estruc tion capability against hostile satellites." The Pentagon dened a Washington Post story to this effect at the time. Back then,' the Minuteman ICBM was seen as a possibility for the antisatellite role. Now the, Pentagon sees the long-range Spartan missile killer as the candidate for blinding or de- stroying enemy satellites if that should ever be required. leas explosives for 0 't' urpose. nt war in space some-dray, space passibility may be a osely blown up after they "l}1dter" vehicles flew at 248,, it flew over the Equa at iii; angle of 62:2 de 'Tees. --if satellite . "target as indeed an inspection n`lots of little pieces. ' ti Lilt. three vehicles were la 64ed from Russia's-fiyura- dk'wadng -the explosions in sp#ce'were not published until this a r, her po, irity' Is that be eipar1iinenting J&Woved For Ri asd 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000300140006-4 WASHINCw EQr Release 9,0,1/Q8/28q JZ_04q'1BO0364R000300140006-4 ..., : Proposes 1V uclear Inspection by. , April 8 - The tegt1nnal Instead of mu- tt n ection in . any agree. e~}t. fora cut-off in 1 p 2% materials. si ian S., Fisher, U.S. nego- pteti ,n ?pokesman de- ,il inspection policy," sug- gested that verification shouldI United States has always fa- their agreeing to IAEA &nspec- be carried out by the 101-na- vored IAEA inspection for de- tion under the nuclear nonpro- tion International Atomic En- Glared facilities, the officials liferation treaty. ergy Agency (IAEA) instead of said, and now feels that jyk But It was thought It might bilaterally rove detection te h i . c n ues [In Washington, officials make unnecessarv ver- prove embarrassing to the-So- said the United States had ar ins ec ion care orr un viet Union, which is reluctant changed position only in drop- declared facilities.] to accept any inspection on Its ping its insistence on unan- oday sproposa was ex- own territory but has- called nounced "advisory inspec- petted to please non-nuclear on non-nuclear states to ac- tions" in which e=h country I counties who have repeatedly cept IAEA inspection. could look for hidden nuclear-(called for some reciprocal The U.S. move also acted as weapons plants on, the terri-II move on the part of the nu- a counterweight to Soviet pro- tory of a potential enemy. The j clear, powers in exchange for posals-rejected by America Interi~tionjil Unit --d & a., complete test ban wttli4t on-site Inspection. essential elements of 4 m an agreed date, nu- 'lear-weapons states would alt production of fissiona- e erial for use in nuclear ? The productian fissiona- ble rgateriai w e permit- ted for purpoa ether than use in nuclear weapons, such as power and propulsion reac- tors and nuclear explosives for peaceful uses. ? The IAEA would be asked to check the nuclear Materials in each country's peaceful nu clear activities. Alexei' Roshchin, chief $o? viet disarmament negotiator, d~cfined to make any immedi, ate comment. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 NEW YORK TIMES DATE E. q 4,k-104 nd death caused by the toxic en iron- ment of gas used in Wotid War I. here Is presently growing concern over Thor, urgent need for clarification Just that constitutes biological and ch !'cal warfare. There is the pressing nee - for the nations of the world not only to eon- emn the use of biological and the cal arfare--BCW-but also to li ! its 1-UUUU 1Ofl. The Nonproliferation Treaty, one step in Ireventing the prolife: Of nuclear confrontation. Further increasing mutual trust are based o Fold in common with other nations ri, Is rtion ;treps and i'the ,iwe 1?s'o- ,per- While we speak of preventing the tl1 their problems of national sec ale solved. Of un- rity Ratification of the Nonproliferation to fulfill an undertaking that, because Treaty, then, mist be paralleled with of changed circumstances, appeared increased. efforts at confidence-building threatening to us.; among nations. President Nixon's recent But we can trust the Russians--and trip to Europe, his consultations with they us-to comply faithfully with the the leadership of Western Europe, his terms of a mutually advantageous agree- willingness to meet with the Soviet Union ment. So the judgment we have to make in missile talks, his expressed interest in is whether, in fact, the Soviet Union listening to the leadership of the na- shares with us an-interest in preventing tions of the world are a hopeful sign in the spread of nuclear weapons through- this confidence-building. out the world. And alternatively, are For the above reasons, I am pleased there circumstances in which the lead- to loin with other Senators in urging ers of the Kremlin would perceive im- advice and consent to the ratification of portant advantages to themselves in pro- the Nonproliferation Treaty. viding nuclear arms to states which do Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I sup- not now posses them? port and shall vote for ratification of the Again, the answer to both these ques- Treaty -on Nonproliferation of Nuclear tions seems to me perfectly clear. The Weapons presently before us. Soviet Union has demonstrated in every The arguments both pro and con conceivable way that they, like us, view ratification have been ably marshalled the prospect of a nuclear war with utter and presented to us in the report of the horror. On every occasion since the dawn Committee on Foreign Relations. By a of the atomic age when confrontation be- nearly unanimous vote the committee, tween us seemed imminent, or even pos- under the briliiar..t leadership of its dis- sible, they have joined with us in de- tinguished chairman, the Senator from fusing the crisis. And indeed in some Arkansas (Mr. Ftrr.BRIGHT), has strongly instances-most notably the Berlin con- recommended ratification. Other Sena- frontation of late 1961-the Russians tors of great distinction have debated unilaterally pulled back from a position the geustion, both in support of and op- on which their leaders had staked a con- position to the committee's recommenda- siderable measure of reputation. i em- tion, in a manner that reflects the highest phasize the word. "unilaterally"; they possible credit upon this body and rein- themselves defused the very dangerous forces its status a; the greatest delibera- Berlin situation without the slightest tive assembly in the world. concession on our part. This seems to I may say, too, Mr. President, that the me a telling indication of their profound quality of this debate should serve to concern to avoid nuclear confrontation. remind the Nation-if indeed it needed And by joining with us and other i gna- s any reminders during this tragic era of tory powers in limiting the spread of nu- our Vietnam. involvement-that compe- clear weapons, the Soviets enhance their tence on the deepest problems of interna- own vital national interest in lessening tional politics is by no means confined to the possibility that confrontations will members of the executive branch of be imposed upon them-or us-by cir- Government. cumstances outside our control. The question now before us Is whether Let us look at the matter of Soviet we should advise and consent to the rati- good faith from the vantage point of the fication of the Treaty on Nonprolifera- second question I raised: Could the Rus- tion of Nuclear Weapons. I have al- sians gain some positive advantage by ready stated that I shall vote "yea" on secretely providing nuclear arms to their the absolutely fundamental grounds that friends and allies? If the weapons were it is in the vital interest of the United ever to be used, such an act of madness States to adhere to the treaty. Not even could come about inonly two ways: the the opponents of the resolution deny that Soviet-armed state could launch an at- effective steps to halt the spread of nu- tack with Kremlin permission or without clear weapons are indeed vitally impor- it. If the latter, the Soviet Union Itself tant to us. The only question is, does this would then be engulfedin a nuclear ca- treaty hold promise of being an effective tastrophe against its own wishes. If the means to that end? I believe it does, Mr. former, it would suffer the same immeas- President, and wish at this time to ad- urable disaster without having had dress myself to one aspect of crucial im- whatever strategic advantage accrues portance to an assessment of the treaty's from precise controls over the timing and feasibility. targeting of the attack. It can be put in the form of a simple For there can be no mistaking the query: Can we trust the Russians? Can consequences of a nuclear attack by any we trust them to abide by the terms of nation upon any nation: the nuclear the treaty and not take some sort of in- superpowers would Inevitably, irresistibly Sidious advantage of our own good faith? be drawn into the maelstrom of retalia- The answer seems to me perfectly tion and counterretaliation. Can we, for clear. We cannot trust the Russians to example, envision the United States abide by any agreement, formal or in- sitting idly by while Egypt, say, lauched formal, which they believe to be harmful a nuclear assault-the weapons supplied to their own interests. But neither can by Russia-against' Israel? Can we en- we trust the British, the French, the vision the Soviets sitting idly by while Indians, the Mexicans, or any other na- Greece, say, lauched a nuclear assault- tion that now exists or ever has existed, the weapons supplied by this country- to live up to the terms-of 1, commitment against Bulgaria? that they come to regard as inimical to No, Mr. President, the situation Is en- their own vital interests. Nor indeed, Mr. tirely clear: There is absolutely no ad- President, has the United States ever vantage to be gained this id f s e o ,- Arma sacrificed a vital interest in order geddon, for either the Russians or our- Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 March 13, 19694pproved FcCOPIgW$Q? ZI@tE g e7g W#R000300140006-4 S 2813 selves to provide other nations with means of waging nuclear war. Hence, to join with the Soviet Union in a Non- proliferation Treaty is not at all to rest our national security upon Soviet good faith, benevolence, or high-mindedness. It is a matter, plainly and simply, of recognizing that Russian interests, like ours, require their compliance with the terms of the treaty. For them to violate the treaty is to place their own vital interests in jeopardy. That is the most nearly perfect guarantee we can have or hope to have-that they will abide by an undertaking of this sort. . None of what I have said, Mn Presi- dent, is meant to suggest that the prob- lem of nuclear weapons proliferation will be definitively settled by our ratification of this treaty or by the Soviet Union's strict observance of its terms. We shall still have to live with the fact of French and Chinese refusal to become signa- tories and with the expressed unwilling- iness of other nations that have the technical capacity to become nuclear powers in the near future. But it is surely no argument against this or any other treaty to say that it falls short of perfec- tion. It is a step-a large, useful step-in the direction of a goal all civilized people wish to attain-a world in which the word "nuclear" will be associated in men's minds not with nightmare and an- nihilation but with progress and abun- dance for all the peoples of the world. Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the awe- some power of the hydrogen bomb is known to all of us. Today, five nations, Great - Britain, France, Russia, China, and the United States have nuclear weapons, and about 25 other countries have the technological and economic po- tential to develop them also. As the mem- bership in the nuclear club increases, the chance that some irresponsible na- tion might unleash this vast power grows greater. Therefore, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons should be of vital concern to men everywhere. Certainly, we are aware that the trig- gering of nuclear warfare would bring disaster to all countries involved. It is crucial that further proliferation of this enormous power be stopped. The ratification by the U.S. Senate of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a most important step in that direction. This treaty is another wedge in our at- tempt to stop the insane rush that has propelled our civilization towards self destruction. Our country has a long history of try- ing to control this devastating power-in 1946 the Baruch plan proposed an in- ternational authority to control all dan- gerous atomic materials from the min- ing process to the manufacturing of fin- ished products. Approval of this plan would have removed nuclear energy from the military field, but unfortunately it was not adopted. However, in the same year, 1946, the McMahon Act prohibit- ing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to any other nation, passed the Congress. This unilateral action indicated to the rest of the world that the United States had no intention of sharing this military power with other nations. However, other countries did develop the bomb, first Russia, then .Great Britain, France, and most recently China. Despite the spread of the bomb to other nations, in 1954 we reiterated our pledge not to share the U.S. nuclear military expertise with other nations, when we passed the Atomic Energy Act. Ever since the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb, the United States has sought to reach an agreement with Rus- sia limiting the use of atomic energy to peaceful purposes. In 1963, the first breakthrough was made with the Soviets. A Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was mutually negotiated and found acceptable to us and the other major world powers. Test- ing of weaponry in the atmosphere was prohibited, and neither Russia nor the United States had broken its pledge in this regard. In 1963, all Americans hailed this treaty as a great step forward. In 1963, our nuclear sophistication and know-how was so great that our national security was not at- all endangered by ratification of that treaty. There was no need for further atmospheric testing. Today we have stockpiled vast stores of atomic weaponry. We have enough hy- drogen bombs to explode every form of matter in existence. To be sure, the Rus- sians probably. have a force equivalent to ours. But while our military strength is enormous, there have been events that could have precipitated a nuclear disas- ter. Fortunately, the lines of communica-, tion between Russia and the United States have been kept open, and differ- ences have been discussed-disputes settled. However, as atomic warheads and nu- clear weaponry proliferate, the channels toward peaceful resolution of problems become more difficult to negotiate. In recognition of this fact, the U.S. Senate in 1966 unanimously adopted a resolution urging the President to nego- tiate an international agreement limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. On this issue, there was no partisan dissent. But yet today after an agreement has been negotiated, and after 87 nations have already signed the treaty, including the U.S.S.R. and Great Britain, some are heard to say, "Maybe the Senate ought not to ratify this treaty." This Nation cannot afford to let the irresponsible voices win out over the sen- sible arguments pressing for ratifica- tion of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Men of great military and po- litical expertise such as General Wheel- er, Deputy Secretary of Defense Nitze have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging speedy ap- proval of this treaty. I think their dialog is of particular importance, and let me read it to you now: Senator PASTORE. Now there is absolutely nothing in this treaty that is of a disad- vantage to us in a military sense. Is that true? General WHEELER. That is my belief, sir. Senator PASTORE. As a matter of fact, all that the military, all that the nuclear pow- ers, are being asked to do is not pass the control of these weapons to other countries. General WHEELER. That is correct, sir. Senator HIcKENLOOPER. Does this treaty create any inhibitions on our own national defense? Secretary NITZE. It does not, Senator. General WHEELER. That is my view also, Senator. The Secretary of State, under the Johnson administration, Dean Rusk, has wisely counseled the Senate along with other high-ranking Government officials for speedy acceptance. I, too, believe that the Senate should give its advice and consent to this treaty. Failure to do so in this session of Con- gress would be irresponsible and detri- mental to the cause of world stability and peace. The incorrect conception that this treaty is against the interests of the se- curity of the United States should not be given legitimacy and credence. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in no way affects our nuclear capacity. It' simply provides assurance that the na- tions without nuclear weapons will not develop the military aspects of atomic energy but will direct atomic know-how for peaceful purposes only. The treaty also commits the nations with nuclear capacity not to transfer nuclear weap- ons or control over them to any other nonnuclear power. While the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty represents a step forward, it is not the end of the road. It does mark an improvement over the present situa- tion-possibly 100 nations will be signa- tories of this treaty-this seems to be a milestone in the progress of interna- tional diplomacy. Sharing the knowledge of nuclear power for peaceful purposes can bring great benefits to the people of the world. Nuclear energy is now helping us to treat and diagnose the sick, to produce and grow better crops, and to run in- dustries more efficiently. Most dramatic- ally dozens of nuclear power stations will produce millions of kilowatts of electricity. We can even look forward to the day when the energy from large nu- clear reactors will produce fresh water, fertilizers, in addition to more electrical powers. During the Truman, Eisenhower, Ken- nedy, and Johnson administrations, every effort was made by Americans, regardless of party, to work out sensible international agreements involving atomic materials. The search for some formula to control the spread of nuclear weapons has been an important and ur- gent task of four administrations. Today in 1969 speaking in favor of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons this is the question we face: Are we now going to turn our backs and repu- diate the work of four administrations and the advice of the new Nixon regime to ratify, ignore the advice of our leading military and Government officials; or are we going to speedily ratify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? The question has been put forward- my vote is for ratification. Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons raises many questions, some of which have been ably answered on this floor in the past few days, and others which have as yet been unanswered. I have consulted with the able and dis- Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 CIA-RDP71 B00364R000300140006-4 $2814 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE March 13, 1969 ti;'`iguished Senator from Maryland ~Mr. ATHIAS), and we concur that the fol- lng questions are pertinent, and we f el that the answers provide an de- q to basis for supporting ratification of the treaty. The questions we have asked ourselves follow: Question: When will the Soviet Union ratify? Answer: On the one hand, one might e pest the U.S.S.R. to delay deposit of r tifi cation until the United States had d posited and West Germany had at 1 ast signed. On the other-hand, the So- viets might believe they would have more 1 verage if they deposited in the not too tant future, possibly at-the same time the United States, and thereby would b able to exert more pressure on $ion- Signatories and nonratifiets. IQuestion: What of the intention of France and communist China not to sign? Answer: There is no doubt that the t eaty would be relatively stronger if b)th mmunist China and France were to However, every nonnuclear nation ch signs eliminates itself as a recip- 1 it of nuclear weapons, Including from n clear powers who do not sign the t aty. Already 84 nonnuclear na i )ns ve signed, and we an ieipate any more. Moreover, the NPT contains an oli- gation that nonnuclear powers should not ake nuclear weapons on their own; and this obligation obviously Is not off ted by the nonadherence of France and Cem- Ii#unist China. There is no reason to presume tnat Communist China and France V{tc uid p ace nuclear weapons in the hand of o her seven if they were in a positiqr:. to d so. In fact, the French Ambassa 3or s ated at the United Nations that "FI.axrce will behave in the future in this field exactly as the states adhering to the treaty." Question: What is the status of the nAajor non-nuclear-weapon nonsig aa- toi ties? Answer: Wine countries are 3uKied c pable of producing some nuclear We p- o s within 5 years. Four have aireidy S'ned the NPT: Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Those that have not yet signed are Australia, ~Fcd- ei'alRepublic of Germany, India, Israel, and Japan. Among those other states with some nuclear weapon potential, but whole re- sources are more limited 8o that it would take longer to develop sizable and so- phisticated nuclear weapons and del;cent signs in air-craft to mark doors and exits, railroads have experi- mented with them as light sources for sig- nals at track switches, the Coast Guard Is experimenting with them to supply power for unattended buoys and lightships. Nu- clear fission drives the experimental mer- chant ship, the N .S. Savannah, which is now In routine commercial use. MM 2 Discuss the development of the nuclear industry in the United States. The American nuclear industry was con- ceived during the Manhattan Project of World War II. By 1946 uranium mining and prospecting were going on and government owned factories to ;mill the ores, extract the uranium, separate out the fissionable con- tent and convert uranium-238 into pluto- nium were in existence. The commercial nu- clear industry began to expand with revision of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954 to permit private ownership of nuclear reactors and possession and to encourage use of nuclear fuel materials. The AEC has followed a de-. liberate. policy of encouraging private in- dustry to provide necessary products and services, and has withdrawn from competi- tion as private suppliers have proven ade- quate to supply civil needs. The first part of the industry to become wholly private was the mining and milling=of uranium. At present, all manufacturing capabilities needed for civil use of nuclear energy are privately available except for separation of the fissionable component of uranium, and disposal of the Intensely radioactive wastes left over from reprocessing of used nuclear fuels. For 1967, the value of selected atomic energy products was $856 million of which $119 million was to Government agencies and $35 million was export trade. This in- dustry includes prospecting for uranium ores, mining them, extracting the uranium, separating out its fissionable component and converting other forms into fissionable plu- tonium, manufacturing radioisotopes, manu- facturing nuclear reactors for power and for research, fabricating fissionable materials into fuel products for reactors, and dispos- ing of radioactive wastes. The estimated cost of nuclear power plants announced by utilities during the first nine months of 1968 totaled about $2 billion, bringing the estimated Investment in nuclear power plants operating, under construction or planned to about $12 billion. ITEM 3 Discuss the share of the nuclear industry in the Gross National Product. For 1968 the GNP was $860,7 billion. While the selected shipments for the atomic en- ergy industry for 1967 do not represent the whole of the industry, for they do not in- elude Government enriching and plutonium manufacture, the $358 million should be more than half. Assuming then that the American nuclear industry had a level of from $358 million to $700 million, and real- izing the inaccuracies in comparing such a figure directly with the GNP, nevertheless, it appears that the nuclear industry is presently less than one pereent of the GNP. ITEM 4 Discuss the spin off of new industry growth from the nuclear industry. Since the beginning of the Manhattan project which created the atom bomb, some of the technology and products originated or perfected for nuclear energy have moved into general use. One example is the large scale .use of fluorocarbons which led to teflon and related products. A whole new, although small, instrumentation industry has been created. Remotely controlled manipulators perfected for use in places of Intense radia- tion have been adapted to undersea research vehicles. Very recently the AEC announced that a high-speed centrifuge developed at Oak Ridge has been put to a new, important use, which is research in the control of in- sect pests. The U.S. Department of Agri- culture Forest Service is now using the cen- trifuge to concentrate and purify viruses in large quantities for use in viral insec- ticides that can attack a specific insect species while not harming other species. The immediate target pest is the tussock moth, which kills Douglas fir trees. EXHIBIT 3 SOVIET ATTACKS ON GERMANY THROICGH THS NPT August 29, 1957--Soviet representative Val- erian A. Zorin attacks Western disarmament proposals, charging that the United States had already transferred nuclear weapons to the Federal Republic of Germany. July 19, 1962--Zorin attacks West Germany and proposes an agreement among the nu- clear powers "not to deliver nuclear weapons, control of them, or information necessary for their manufacture to states which at the present time do not possess them. July 11, 1964-Soviet opposition to the Multi-Lateral Forces .(MLF) centers on the participation of West Germany. Soviet note to the United States charges that West Ger- man "military and political circles" regard Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 March 13, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE the MLF as only a beginning and checks a dominant role in the project. June, 1965-Soviet representative Semyon Tsarapkin to the Disarmament Commission attacks the United States for leaving the door open for a MLF or Atlantic Nuclear Force (ANF) and questions Secretary of Defense McNamara's recent proposal for a special NATO Committee to study nuclear planning, especially because West Germany would par- ticipate in the Committee. August 17, 1965-Semyon Tsarapkin asks whether the U.S. draft of the treaty provides the prohibition of "direct" access to nuclear weapons through a MLF with West Germany participation. He says that the draft treaty is unsatisfactory on this point because it leaves open the door for the MLF. He insists that a non-dissemination agreement must not allow any loopholes or exceptions. He says it is necessary to ban direct access and that the MLF would give West Germany and other non-nuclear NATO countries access to nuclear weapons. September 24, 1965-Soviets submit draft treaty to U.N. In the First Committee, Soviet Ambassador Fedorenko says the American position aims at "legalizing access to these weapons and in the first analysis to partici- pate in the position of management and utilization of them by the non-nuclear powers of NATO-and first of all by the Fed- eral Republic of Germany." He says that the Soviet draft treaty would make it impossible to create a MLF or an ANF which would en- able non-nuclear powers, above all, the Fed- eral Republic of Germany, to obtain nuclear weapons. September 8, 1965-Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko tells the Supreme Soviet that West Germany's desire to participate In an MLF was in effect a vote against the General As- sembly Resolution on disarmament and was an attempt to "torpedo" a Non-Proliferation Treaty. He says that the U.S.S.R. not only opposes the MLF and ANF but also rejects a two-committee system for controlling nuclear weapons on West German territory. In the Soviet view, any attempt "to camouflage the (West German) accession to nuclear weapons through the establishment of some sort of committee" would contradict the Potsdam Agreement and other allied commitments to prohibit German militarism. September 1, 1966-Premier Kosygin sends a message to the ENDC. He says that the Soviet Union is now willing to include a clause "on the prohibition of the use of nu- clear weapons against non-nuclear states or parties to the treaty which have no nuclear weapons in their territory." At the same time, he attacks alleged plans to give West Ger- many "terrorists and revanchists" access to nuclear weapons. September 17, 1966-Soviet Ambassador Tsarapkin says that whatever nuclear sharing plans the V.S. and its allies might have, the U.S.S.R. would never agree to West German "access to nuclear weapons" for this would increase tension in Europe, threaten Euro- pean security, and nullify' any attempts to conclude an effective NPT. September 17, 1966-Zdenek Cernik, Czech- oslovak representative, says that the West German desire to participate in a joint nu- clear force and in the control of nuclear weapons and the making of decisions on their use within the framework of NATO shows that there are other direct ways and means of proliferating nuclear weapons. February 17, 1966-Miesczyslaw Blusztajn, the Polish representative charges that West Germany is the only Western European coun- try interested in nuclear sharing and that the majority of Western Europeans are against it. March 29, 1966-Ambassador Alexi Rosh- chin charges that the Western Powers still wished "to leave a loophole for giving access to nuclear weapons to non-nuclear powers and in the first place, to the Federal Republic of Germany." April 28, 1966-Rochohin says that the U.S. draft provides the possibility for the U.S., irrespective of whether unified nuclear forces are created in NATO or not, to transfer nu- clear weapons to other countries; for ex- ample, the Federal Republic of Germany and for the latter, to obtain these weapons, keep them, transport them as it sees fit, and put them into its missiles or aircraft which could thus carry out flights with nuclear weapons aboard. Lastly, the Federal Republic of Ger- many would be able to use these weapons after receiving the consent of a nuclear power. August 18, 1966-Rochchin says the U.S. regards the treaty as a piece of paper "but gives priority to giving West Germany the right to take part in a joint nuclear force." September 26, 1966-Czechoslovak dele- gate reports that East Germany is prepared to accept IAEA safeguards if West Germany also accedes. September 23, 1966-Foreign Minister Gro- myko again says the U.S. draft treaty leaves loopholes for West Germany. August 17, 1967-,soviets charge that use of Euratom safeguards in place of IAEA safe- guards meant that West Germany was being inspected only by Its Allies. August 24, 1967-Common Soviet-U.S. Draft Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceed- ed to call the roll. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. SAXBE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the resolu- tion of ratification? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will this be the final vote on the treaty? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Vermont is advised that this will be a vote on whether the Senate will advise and consent to the resolution of ratification. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an- nouncethat the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN) is necessarily absent. Mr. SCOTT. I announce that the Sena- tor from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) is de- tained on official business, and if pres- ent and voting, would vote "yea." The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 83, nays 15, as follows: S 2831 [No. 23 EX.] YEAS--83 Aiken Gravel Mundt Allott Griffin Muskie Anderson Hansen Nelson Baker Harris Packwood Bayh Hart Pastore Bellmore Hartke Pearson Bennett Hatfield Pell Bible Holland Percy Boggs Hruska Prouty Brooke Hughes Proxmire Burdick Inouye Randolph Byrd, Va. Jackson Ribicoff Byrd, W. Va. Javits Saxbe Cannon Jordan, N.C. Schweiker Case Jordan, Idaho Scott Church Kennedy Smith Cook Magnuson Sparkman Cotton Mansfield Spong Cranston Mathias Stevens Dirksen McCarthy Symington Dodd McGee Talmadge Dole McGovern Tydings Eagleton McIntyre Williams, N,J. Ellender Metcalf Williams, Del. Fong Miller Yarborough Fuibright Mondale Young, N. Dak. Goodell Montoya Young, Ohio Gore Moss NAYS-15 Allen Fannin Murphy Curtis Goldwater Russell Dominick Gurney Stennis Eastland Hollings Thurmond Ervin Long Tower NOT VOTING-2 Cooper McClellan The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STEVENS in the chair). Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of rati- fication is agreed to. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I move that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's consent to the resolution of ratification. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STEVENS in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I wish to extend appreciation to the dis- tinguished majority leader and the dis- tinguished minority leader for the way they cooperated in the handling of this very important treaty. I think all of the Senate should be proud of the fine de- bate that has taken place. I think this has been an exhaustive and informative debate. Those Senators who offered reserva- tions and understandings, even though the chairman could not accept them, are to be commended. Nearly all proposals were sound in substance, and it was for procedural reasons that I could- not ac- cept them. However, the debate which they inspired did a great deal to make a clear legislative history. I think the de- bate added a great deal to national un- derstanding of the treaty. I believe a fine record has been made. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), the able and effective chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, deserves the highest commenda- tion of the Senate for the manner in which he led this treaty to final approval today. All Senators are aware of the extensive hearings and work involved in bringing a treaty of such great impor- tance to the floor. Its handling by Sena- tor FULBRIGHT was distinguished most perhaps by the highly thoughtful and Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 S 2832 Approved For Release 2001/08/28: CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 13, 1969 competent way the chairman led the discussion. Once agajtx we are in his debt. Once again does the Nation owe to him its gratitude for such a thorough and high-level discussion of the great issues involved. May I say also that the rankiing minor- ity members of the coriimittee, the Senior Senator from VerZpont (Mr. AIKEN) deserves similar high praise for his de- voted efforts in behalf of this treaty. From the outset-when hearings began last summer-he joined with': the able Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARE MAN) in assuring a full and exhaustive study. So we are indeed grateful to Senator AixxN, to Senator SPARKMAN, and to the other committee members for their vast contribution to the success of the matter. And joining specifically to assure a full discussion of all of the issues' involved were the distinguished Senator from Connecticut (Mr. DoDD), the distin- guished Senator from North Carolina (Mr. ERvXN), the dis anguished Senator from South Carolina (Mr. TH riU&OND) , and the distinguished Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER). Their strong and sincere views are always welcome; in- deed, the Senate profited particularly from their expressions concerning the issues involved in a matter as 'complex and important as is this treaty, A number of others are to be simi- larly commended for their participation: the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator from South Da- kota (Mr. MUNDT), the Senators from California (Mr. CaANsToN and Mr. MUR- PHY) and many more-Xhould be included in this list. In fact, I believe the Senate as a whole may justly be proud of this achievement-obtained with such great bipartisan cooperation. on an issue of such monumental importance to all mankind. ORDER OF BUSINESS' Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I would like to query the majorityleadle- con- cerning the program for the rein cinder of the week and also for next week, if possible. VACATING OF ORDER FOR RECE Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President; I ask unanimous consent that the order which was agreed to earlier by the Senate to recess at the conclusion of business to- day until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning be vacated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE MES- SAGES, FILE REPORTS, AND SIGN BILLS Mr. MANS]^ IELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the ad- journment following today's session un- til the Senate reconvenes on Monday, March 17, 1969, the Secretary of the Sen- ate be authorized to receive messages from the President of the United States and the House of Representatives, and that said messages may be appropriately referred. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that several measures have been re;aorted by the Committee on Commerce today which hopefully will be taken up on. Monday next. It is antici- pated that we will try to clear as much of the Executive Calendar as possible im- mediately upon the conclusion of this colloquy with the distinguished minority leader so that we can see to it that some of these people who have been appointed will be able to take up their jobs immedi- ately. There will be no further votes tonight. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. When does the majority leader expect to take up the nomination of Mr. Smith for the Farmers Home Administration? Mr. MANSF]ELD. I would assume on Monday. Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator. Mr. MANSFIELD. I think that can be worked out for Monday. Mr. AIKEN. The reason I ask is that the Farmers Hcme Administration is not able to properly function and it is one of the most important agencies of Government. Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is correct. NO]iEINATIONS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of nomina- tions on the Executive Calendar, begin- ning with John S. D. Eisenhower, under Department of State. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The nominations on the Executive Cal- endar will be stated, beginning with the nomination of John S. D. Eisenhower. INTERNATIONAL, MONETARY FUND, INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RE- CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOP- MENT, AND INTER-AMERICAN DE- VELOPMENT BANK The bill clerk read the nomination of David M. Kennedy, of Illinois, to be U.S. Governor of the International Mon- etary Fund, U.S. Governor of the Inter- national Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and a Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is considered and confirmed. ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK The bill clerk read the nomination of David M. Kennedy, of Illinois, to be U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is considered and confirmed. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The bill clerk proceeded to read sundry nominations in the Department of Transportation. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the nomina- tions in the Department of Transporta- tion be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nominations in the De- partment of Transportation are con- sidered and confirmed en bloc. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The bill clerk proceeded to read sundry nominations in the Department of Commerce. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask that the nominations in the De- partment of Commerce be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nominations In the De- partment of Commerce are considered and confirmed en bloc. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION The bill clerk read the nomination of Donald L. Jackson, of California, to be a member of the Interstate Com- mission. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is considered and confirmed. ORDER FOR ADJOV'RNMEN'1" TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPARED- MONDAY, MARCR 17, 19619 The bill clerk read the nomination of NESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask John S. D. Eisenhower, of Pennsylvania, The bill clerk read the nomination of unanimous consent that when the Sen- to be Ambassador Extraordinary and James D. O'Connell, of California to be late completes its business today, it stand Plenipotentiary of the United States of , an Assistant Director of the Office of in adjournment until ]upon on Monday America to Belgium. Emergency Preparedness. next. The PRESIDING OFFICER,. Without The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without The PRESIDING OFl~'ICER. Without objection, the nomination is considered objection, the nomination is considered objection, it is so ordered. and confirmed. and confirmed. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 United States of America Vol. 115 Approved For Release 2001/ g aT E:on ressiona 'Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 I St CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1969 Senate (Legislative day of Friday, March 7, 1969) range goals of the World Weather Pro- gram and the activities in support of that program which have been planned by eight Federal agencies for Fiscal Year 1970. The budget figures shown in this report are consistent with those which appeared in the budget submitted to the Congress on January 15, 1969. I commend this report to you and hope you will give it your careful attention, for it describes activities which can con- tribute in important-ways to the quality of American life. The World Weather Program promises, for example, to pro- duce earlier and more accurate weather forecasts than we now receive. It is also exploring the feasibility of large-scale weather modifications. Because so much of our social and economic life is sig- nificantly influenced by weather condi- tions, it is important that we encourage those advances in weather prediction and control which our scientists now foresee. This project, and our role in it, also have great political significance. For the World Weather Program, growing out of United Nations initiatives in the early 1960's, has developed into a most im- pressive example of international co- operation. On a scale never attempted until this decade, scientists and govern- ments in many countries are joining hands across national boundaries to serve the entire human community. Their example should be instructive for all of us as we pursue lasting peace and order for our world. This report "talks about the weather," but it demonstrates that we can do far more about our weather than merely talk about it. I believe that the plans for American participation which are out- lined here reflect the sense of both the Congress and the Executive Branch of our government that the United States should give its full support to the World Weather Program. The Senate met in executive session at 10 o'clock a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the Vice President. The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward L. R, Elson, D.D., offered the following prayer:, Eternal God, in whose perfect kingdom no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, and no strength known but the strength of love: So guide and inspire,, we pray Thee, the work of all who seek Thy kingdom at home and abroad, that all peoples may seek and find their security, not in force of arms, but in the perfect love that casteth out fear, and in the fellowship revealed to us by Thy Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Impart Thy higher wisdom to the Mem- bers of this body, to whom the people have committed the stewardship of peace, that in this moment of history they may clearly know Thy will and have courage to do it. In Thy holy name, we pray. Amen. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT- APPROVAL OF BILL Messages in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States were communi- cated to the Senate by Mr. Geisler, one of his secretaries, and he announced that on March 12, 1969, the President had ap- proved and signed the act (S. 17) to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 with respect to the election of the board of directors of the Com- munications Satellite Corp. , REPORT ON WORLD WEATHER PROGRAM-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which, with the accompanying report, was re- ferred to the Committee on Commerce: To the Congress of the United States: I am pleased to transmit to you, in accordance with Senate Concurrent Resolution 67 of the 90th Congress, the first annual plan for United States par- ticipation in the World Weather Pro- gram. This document describes the long- RICHARD NIXON. THE WHITE HousE, March 13, 1969. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate sundry messages from the Pres- ident of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) TREATY ON THE ~RO7aPz.A- .T ,QN OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS The Senate resumed the consideration of Executive H, 90th Congress, second session, the Treaty on the Nonprolifera- tion of Nuclear Weapons. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair lays before the Senate the pending busi- ness, which the clerk will state. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Executive H, 90th Congress, second session, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nu- clear Weapons. The VICE PRESIDENT. The pending question is on the understanding of- fered by the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. DOD). Under the unanimous con- sent agreement of yesterday, the time will be controlled by the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT) and the Senator offering the reservation or un- derstanding, to the extent of a 1-hour limitation. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that I may make the following requests, apart from the time limitation on the pending understanding. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. THE JOURNAL Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, March 12, 1969, be approved. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS DUR- ING SENATE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all committees be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 S 2776 Approved For Reid 4,T31 1 6flS 0300140006-4March 13, 4969 The VICE PRESIDENT. Without jection, it is so ordered. title stated that it has been said about Mr. AGNEW that "he has, experienced poverty and prejudice and- risen above them on his own merits." I noted that the article stated that he has repeatedly said that he is "for civilrights" and "against civil disobedience." I noted that the Vice President is reported to hold the view that "no President should tolerate violence," and that law and order means "the protection of the individual regard- less of race or creed." In gist, I noted some good, solid re- ports on the Vice President, and I recom- mend the article to the Members of the Senate for review. Mr. President, I also call attention to the fact that the Vice President has presided 22 days; since the inauguration. The Senate has been in session 22 days since the date of the inauguration. So far as my own observations are concerned, ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL Q A.M. TOMORROW-ORDER VAC TID Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that wten the Senate completes its business today, It stand in recess until 10 o'clock totriprrow morning. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. (Later in the day, the Senate in va- cating the above order, ordered thn't the Senate stand in adjournment un 1 Mon- day, March 17, 1969, at 12 o'clo k me- ridian.) ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Presi eat, I i suggest the absence of a quor , again apart from the time limitation. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tho order for the quorum call be rescinded. The VICE PRESIDEl+1T. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Presi e11t, I yield 3 minutes, on my, time, to dis- tinguished Senator from West irginia (Mr. BYRD). MAN TO WATCH Mr. BYRD of West Virgin Mr. President, one of the newcomers to Capitol Hill during the 9171 Congress, the Honorable SPrno T. AGNEW, Vice' Presi- dent of the United States, was tie sub- ject of an interesting article n the March 17 issue of the US. News &;World Report. That article was entitled "A New Kind of Vice President?" It might we !have been entitled "Man To Watch." Those of us in the U.S. Sena 'have had our special opportunities to erve the Vice President as he has fit cI into the job of Presiding OJlcer of th ren- ate. And I believe it is a `air asse iient to say that the manner In which e. has discharged his duties has commended him to all of us. The U.S. News & World Report rticle says it very well when it report that the new Vice President is "gaining ac- ceptance in Congress." We in the enate ;appreciate the dignity and bearin 'With which he presides over the Chamb ri and we have noted his conscientious torts to carry forward his share of the daily work routine of the upper body o Con- gress. Of greater substance, we have be~n in- terested to learn more of his views on issues of national concern, many of which must come before this body dur- ing the coming months of this oo~gres- rsional session. For this reason, I noted with particular interest the statement in the article that Vice President AGNEW "is reported to believe that relief, or welfare, is one of the most difficult prob- since I became a Member of this body over 10 years ago, the fact that the Vice President has been on the job as Presid- ing Officer of the Senate every day it has been in session since the inauguration of the President and the Vice President on January 20, a total of 22 days is some- what of a record. Moreover, I have been very favorably impressed by the manner in which the Vice President presides over this body and the manner in which he preserves decorum and order in this body. I merely wanted to take this moment to express my appreciation for the manner and dignity with which he presides, and to congratulate our Vice President, Mr. AGNEW. Mr. President, :t ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the article to which I have al- luded. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SPIRO T. AGNEW: A NEW KIND OF VICE PIESIDENT? The Vice President is settling into his job in a different way from most of his pred- ecessors. One reason is that the job itself is not the same. A vice-presicential office In the White House is evidence of the expanded role as- signed to the Government's" No. 2 executive. For Mr. Agnew, service in Washington goes far beyond presiding over the U.S. Senate. In choosing Spiro T. Agnew as his running mate last year, Richard Nixon said: "My primary concern was to select a man who had the courage, the character and the intellect-not only to be Vice President-but also to be an effective President if the need arose." The Nixon Administration has been in office now for almost two months. Yet few people seem to know very much about Mr. Agnew, or what he is doing as the No. 2 man in the U.S. Government. The Vice President is a 50-year-old lawyer who formerly served two years as Governor of Maryland and five years as chief executive of Baltimore County. Friends call him "Ted," after his middle name-Theodore. Associates describe him as "poised and controlled"-a man of dignity, fairness and common sense. Mr. Agnew is the first Vice President to have an office in the White House itself. His quarters have been set up in the West Wing, down a corridor from the President's Oval Room office. In addition, Mr. Agnew has a newly refurbished suite in the Executive Office Building-the rooms occupied by Lyndon Johnson when he was Vice President; the traditional vice-presidential offices off the Senate floor at the Capitol, and staff quarters in the new Senate Office Building. SENATE DUTY The Vice President's only constitutional duty Is to preside over the U.S. Senate. Mr. Agnew takes this duty seriously, has made a point of being in the presiding officer's chair at the opening of Senate sessions. Often he steps down to the floor to talk to Senators. Having spent most of his prior government service as an executive, he says the legislative process "is a whole new world to me." Normally, he spends three or four hours a day on Senate business. The Vice President cheerfully recognizes that his role is that of an "associate mem- ber," able to vote only in case of a tie. His main concern has been to win the trust and confidence of the lawmakers of both parties. "A PLEASANT SURPRISE" Veterans at the Capitol believe'the new Vice President is gaining acceptance in Con- gress. He is the first man in 24 years to pre- side over the Senate without first having served as an elected member of that body- some-times described as "the most exclusive club in the world." A Republican Senator has observed: "Agnew is a pleasant surprise. He is doing a whale of a job to cultivate the Senate. He has spent more time in the chair than his predecessor. He eats in the dining room at the Capitol-and I can't remember any Vice President doing that." A Democratic Senator has commented: "Agnew is a smooth politician. He knows how to talk to the Main Street American, and is proud of calling himself a middle-brow. He will beat the drums for Nixon all over the country. Democrats make a great mistake if they underestimate Agnew." Recently, former President Johnson was quoted as saying he believes that Mr. Agnew is "underrated," and that "Nixon made a good choice." By law or executive order, the Vice Presi- dent is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council, and vice chairman of the newly created urban Affairs Council. Moreover, Mr. Agnew is head of the Na- tional Space Council, Council on Economic Opportunity, Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development,. Peace Corps Advisory Council, Indian Affairs -Council, Cabinet Task Force on Youth Opportunity, and Council on Physical Fitness. He also attends White House congressional-leader- ship meetings and is a member of the board of the SmithsdhlanInstitution. Recently, President Nixon assigned Mr, Agnew to work with the nation's Governors and mayors through a new Office of Inter- governmental Relations, with a 12-man staff directed by Nils A. Boe, former Governor of South Dakota. Said a highly placed source: "The Governors now feel they have an 'ambassador' in Washington. This new office should be helpful in bringing cooperation on domestic programs at all levels of govern- ment." A GOOD RAPPORT The Vice President feels that he has established a good rapport with President Nixon, whom he sees on an average of a couple of hours a day in various meetings. An official high up in the Administration de- scribes their relationship in this manner: "No President has ever been more consider- ate to his Vice President. They have the kind of mutual understanding that does not re- quire constant consultation. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 March 12, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE If this oil refinery is built at Machias- port, once a ship goes outside of the Long Island Sound, and perhaps even in Long Island Sound, it is subject to being torpedoed. Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from Louisiana has broad sholders. If I have said any- thing in my remarks to reflect on him personally, I am sorry for doing so. What I was trying to say today was with reference to the big oil companies, whose arguments the Senator has so ably presented. If there was any per- sonal reflection, I withdraw it. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I sought in- formation about this matter from every agency of the U.S. Government which to my knowledge has any information about it, including the antitrust aspects of the matter. I sought information for the speech made here from the Interior De- partment and from the committees that have studied the matter. Information that I could 'not secure from these sources I sought from both the major and the smaller oil companies and independ- ent producers. In addition the Library of Congress was consulted. I also called upon my own personal knowledge of this industry, because I have both made and lost money in the oil business. I know what it is to drill a dry hole, and I know that there is even worse luck possible than drilling a dry hole. So I do know something about the in- dustry from firsthand exposure to it, and because in Louisiana we have raised more money from this industry-which has not endeared me to the oil companies- than we.have from any other single source. I understand something about the problems of the industry and I also know something about the national security, because it has been my privilege to help to protect this great country as a service- man and as a member of such commit- tees as Armed Services, Foreign Rela- tions, and Finance. If Senators want to talk about investi- gating the oil industry, there is nothing new about that, either. I welcome that They can investigate it until Congress runs out, and I will be pleased to learn whatever they can develop. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, today my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) has presented the facts rele- vant to the Machiasport project. I wish to compliment him on his thoroughness and to commend him for bringing this matter to our attex3tion today. The mandatory oil import control pro- gram has one purpose, and that is to pre- vent a veritable flood of foreign oil from undermining the stability of our domes- tic oil and gas industry, an industry which must remain strong and capable of supplying all our energy requirements in a time of national emergency. I must point out that despite the oil import control program, this Nation has experienced a steady deterioration in its inventory of recoverable petroleum re- serves. Exploration for new domestic re- serves is not keeping pace with increased demand. The cumulative result is a de- crease in our national petroleum self- sufficiency and severe impairment of our national security. Two World Wars, the Korean conflict, the Suez crisis of 1956, the Arab-Israel war of 1967, and our current involvement in the Far East have proven beyond ques- tion the vital importance of petroleum self-sufficiency to our national security and to our independent survival in a world dependent on energy for existence. We must recognize there are those persons in American industry who wish only financial advantage over their com- petitors, and they are willing to use the Foreign Trade Zones Act of 1934 as amended to gain such advantage. Such misuse of the act by any petroleum or petrochemical company might yield a short-term financial advantage for the company over its competitors but would surely result in permanent and severe damage to our petroleum self-sufficiency and impair our national security. The regulations that govern the or- derly and limited flow of foreign oil into the United States effectively channel the monetary benefit of the oil import license to the domestic producer through a broad distribution of oil import licenses to hun- dreds of refiners and petrochemical manufacturers located throughout the United States. The creation of a few and then many refining and petrochemical foreign trade zones, with the immense pressure which they would exert upon the import pro- gram, would have the effect of removing the benefit of the oil import program from the domestic petroleum industry. The consequence would be to drastically accelerate the further deterioration of our domestic petroleum self-sufficiency and to jeopardize our national security. I introduced a measure during the last session of the 90th Congress calling for a study of the oil import program. This study would reveal the exact administer- ing of this program and give us the op- portunity to make changes, if any, where necessary. President Nixon has seen fit to order a complete review of the oil import program. I am confident this review will proceed in an orderly fash- ion, and, after its completion, will pro- duce guidelines for strengthening our domestic oil industry. I wish to reiterate, in closing, that under no condition should any foreign trade zones be considered without view- ing them in their entirety as to the effect they would have on our vital national oil industry. The Senate resumed the considera- tion of Executive H, 90th Congress, sec- ond session, the Treaty on the Nonpro- liferation of Nuclear Weapons. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the resolution of ratification of the Nuclear Nonprolifera- tion Treaty. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator will state it. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Are we in execu- tive session? The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are still in executive session. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, by S2701 previous arrangement, I agreed to re- spond to some questions to be pro- pounded by the distinguished Senator from Virginia. Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I should like to clarify -several points concern- ing the relationship between the treaty now before the Senate and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I would, therefore, propound these questions to the distinguished Senator from Ar- kansas. It is my understanding that, under the treaty, the United States would still be able to place nuclear weapons on the lands of our NATO allies so long as the United States retained final con- trol over the use of those weapons. Is my understanding correct? Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator's un- derstanding is correct. I think it is im- portant to point out that this treaty speaks about actions which are prohib- led, and not about those that are per- mitted. It does not undertake to out- line everything that is permitted. It does prohibit the transfer of nuclear weap- ons and materials to a nonnuclear na- tion. It does not deal with, and there- fore does not prohibit, the United States from placing nuclear weapons in the territory of a NATO ally so long as the United States retains control over the use of these weapons. Mr. SPONG. Is it also correct that this is the current policy of the United States? In other words, do we not cur- rently follow a policy whereby nuclear weapons are stationed in NATO coun- tries but whereby the United States re- tains final control over their use? Mr. FULBRIGHT. Not only is it our policy, but also, it is the law. The law- the McMahon Act-prohibits the trans- fer of control of nuclear weapons to other countries, and this treaty in a sense merely confirms the law and the legisla- tive intent of Congress. Mr. SPONG. There is discussion within the NATO alliance, with which the Sen- ator is perhaps familiar, of use of a mari- time contingency force in the Atlantic. Would the same policy regarding nu- clear weapon which is applicable on land under the treaty be applicable to naval operations? In other words, would it be permissible, under the treaty, for the United States to provide the participat- ing vessels with nuclear weapons so long as the United States retained final con- trol over their use? Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is cor- rect. The control by the United States upon the use of the weapons is the de- termining factor, and it is retained. Mr. SPONG. In 1966, NATO estab- lished a Nuclear Planning Group for planning and discussing policy related to the use of strategic nuclear weapons. Is it the Senator's understanding that the treaty would in no way impinge upon the activities of this group? Mr. FULBRIGHT. Most certainly, it is. It does not deal with the planning or consultation of our allies. Mr. SPONG. Other than restricting the actual possession of nuclear weapons and the development of such by our NATO allies who now do not have such weapons, is there anything in the treaty which would restrict our NATO allies Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 S 2702 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 CONGRESSIONAI. RECORD - SENATE March 12, 1969 from assuming a greater role in the al- liance? Mr. FULBRIGHT. No, there is no (restriction on our NATO allies from as- suming a greater role, unless they envi- sion that role as acquiring the control of nuclear weapons themselves from the United States. There is a restriction in that sense. Mr. SPONG. So far as the committee was able to determine, have .the NATO members been fully consulted concern- ing the provisions of the reaty? Mr. FULBRIGHT. They certainly have. This treaty was under negotiation approximately 41/2 years, and at every stage in these negotiations the NATO !members were fully consulted co#icern- !ing the provisions of the treaty. More- over, some of them participated in the drafting of the treaty. Secretary E4ogers, Secretary Laird, and general heeler also reiterated the statements o pre- vious administrations that the treaty is ,consistent with the best interests f the North Atlantic Treaty Organiation. Secretary Rusk told us that the nited States had worked closely with'; those allies in the formulation of the !treaty and that our allies were fully satisfied with the treaty and it In r}o way !would 'jeopardize the alliance. I think the com- Imittee thoroughly agrees with, that evaluation. Mr. SPONG. I have read con ding reports as to what would happen under ,the treaty should Europe unite. onp re- port suggested that a united urope could assume the same nuclear status which was previously held by on of its components. In other words, if urope united with either France or Grea Brit- ain as part of the new union, t 1e, new union could become a nuclear over, succeeding the individual country hich had been one. I believe that this w s for- mer Secretary of State Rusk's w. I have, however, also read an ante reta- tion which suggests that the dear power joining the union would hive to retain final control over the wen ons. I assume that the committee adheres to Mr. Rusk's view. Is that correct? s Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes; that is rrect. The committee adheres to this vi Al- though the treaty does not deal h the problem of European unity, we were given to understand that a new federated European state could inherit the nuclear !status of one of its former compare nts. This new federated European state would have to control all of its external security functions, including defense. This interpretation, to which the' subscribes, is part of a question ,and answer series Included in the;hear- ings of last July, on pages 262 ' 263. I suggest that the Senator read t at, if he wishes to do so. Mr. SPONG. I am familiar with ahem; I have them here. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I might alder: say that the committee was told by Sectary Rogers that the Soviet Union, as e11 as other States, has been given the se 'es of questions to which I have referre and that they have expressed no obj lion. Mr. SPONG. Finally, I should ke to turn for a moment to the inspectio pro- visions of the treaty. Many questio can, would, however, like to focus on one aspect at this time. The treaty leaves open for negotiation between the Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency-IAEA- and Euratom an agreement on safe- guards within the Euratom nations. The Euratom or Common Market nations, which include many of our NATO allies and France, apparently feel that their safeguards are comparable to those ad- vanced by IAEA. I note in the committee report that certain witnesses were "optimistic" as to chances for the two agencies being able to reach agreement. I am not certain, however, that I share this optimism and I wonder if the Sena- tor could tell us a little more about its source, especially in light of the fact that France may not agree to the treaty. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Of course, nobody can guarantee that these countries will agree, and no o:ne can guarantee that Euratom and IAEA will reach this agree- ment. I do believe, however, that the committee looked, at this very closely and that these safeguard systems, which are presently used by these two organiza- tions, are compatible. There is no great divergence between them other than their geographical responsibility, and I believe there is a very good opportunity and probability that they will agree. I hesitate to say that I am optimistic about anything these days, whether it is foreign or domestic. But the significance of this and the danger of not having some restrictions upon the spread of these weapons is such that I think there would be great pressure upon Euratom and IAEA to resolve any differences. As for France, the committee was told that France does not intend to put any barriers in the way of agreement between Euratom and the international organi- zation, although the French have said they do not intend to sign the agreement. I do not know how seriously it might be said that the French never will. At the present time, their attitude is against do- ing so. There have been changes in other situations involving France in the last year or two; and these situations also lead to changes in their political atti- tudes in matters such as this. The alternative, of inadequate control is so threatening that I believe the chances are we can resolve these differ- ences and agree on an inspection pro- gram for Europe. Mr. SPONG. I !;hank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I know that many Senators share My concern about the effect of the treaty upon the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should it be ratified. I felt that these questions and answers should be in the record of this debate. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Senator. He has rendered a real service in bring- ing up these questions. There are many ways to clarify these points. I think the procedure the Senator has followed is a very effective one. . Those of us who deal with these mat- ters in committee sometimes overlook or forget the best way to approach some of these questions. We think we have cov- ered the matter as well as we could, but I believe this Is a good way to de- of course, be raised with regard title velop these important points, and I ap- III, the inspection title, of the treaty. I predate the Senator's contribution. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, as in legis- lative sessions, will the Senator yield to me so that I may dispose of one or two small matters? Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. S. 1522-INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO ESTABLISH GRADUATED MIN- IMUM INCOME TAX Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I intro- duce, for appropriate reference, a bill which would establish a graduated mini- mum income tax, two new types of re- ports from the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the cost of tax prefer- ences, liberalize the general and mini- mum standard deduction to reduce the impact of the tax system on low- and middle-income taxpayers and would re- and oil. In order to tion of the va als, especially for gas rovide a' fuller explana- I ask unanimo4is consent to have printed in the RECOanzthe full text of my testi- mony this morning before the House Ways and Means Committee on this subject. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. EAGLETON in the chair). The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the statement will be printed in the !RECORD. The bill (SL 1522) to amend the In- ternal Revenge Code of 1954 so as to impose a miixlmum income tax on per- sons now allowed certain exclusions and deductions from gross income, to in- crease the amount of the general stan- dard deduction and the minimum stan- dard deduction allowable to individuals, and for other purposes, introducted by Mr. JAVITS, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance. The statement, ordered to be printed in the RECORDS is as follows: STATEMENT BY "SENATOR JAVITS BEFORE THE 21 HOUSE WAYS.A,ND MEANS COMMITTEE RE- GARDING TAx t4EFORM, MARCH 12, 1969 MINIMUM INCOIaE TAX: FIRST STEP TOWARDS 1 TAX REFORM I am honored to have the opportunity to appear before this Committee during Its deliberations oni tax reform. Congress should come to grips with the tax reform issue this year. At a time of heavy federal, state, and local tax burdeivs, the American public is greatly concerned about the significant in- equities remaining In the tax code. Tax reform is *articularly urgent this year because Congrest, will have to act before June 30 on whether to extend the tax sur- charge. Whether for not there are economic justifications for ;Its extension, it would be extremely dif icul to go before the American people and ask ain to support this tax, unless they hav assurance that there also will be meaningful tax reform this year. A more desirable objective would be to report out tax reform legislation simultaneously with the tax surcharge bill. I believe this is possible, especially if the Committee would begin tax reform by approving a minimum income tax proposal. Also tax reform actions are needed if we are to consider tax incentives for such vital purposes as retraining the hard core un- employed and rebuilding the slums. If Con- gress finds that such tax incentives are use- ful and compatible with the basic purposes Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 March 12, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 2703 essential that they be added to a tax code tax. The Treasury has not yet been able to and deduction would be useful to the mini- which has been freed of substantial give me an estimate of the revenue effects of mum tax computation, but would give more inequities. my proposal on corporations. My proposal protection from minimum tax to the latter om that of the Treasury in that taxpayer than it would to the former. T diff f b ers r e I am aware that tax reform cannot accomplished quickly or without a great deal it is simpler and more predictable. would be an irrational result whit is +, r ei would work: avoided under my bill. oI stress. among many powerful interest groups in our 1. The taxpayer would start with his tax- New information from the Secret of the .,,,+url -4- present law. Tran.cvcrv society, auu -uo ..~v w.. However, the process of reforming our tax 2. He would add together five specific My bill also would call fort new types of code has already begun. As a result of an existing exclusions and deductions which, information to be provided a regular part amendment to the Revenue and Expenditure under my bill, are included in the tax base of the Secretary of the easury's annual Control Act of 1968, which I had the honor for minimum tax purposes. The five items to report: (1) Estimates Z the losses in reve- to sponsor last year, the Treasury early last be included for minimum tax purposes are nues resulting from come presently ex- month published comprehensive proposals (a) interest exempt under present law on eluded from tax and the Internal Revenue for tax reform. While this report was not State and local bonds less expenses and in- Code, from deduct ons allowed under tue endorsed by President Johnson, it has al- terests allocable to such interest, (b) de- Code, from the feriae 11 the undeitthe of Im ready exerted great influence in shaping preciation taken on real property to the of the taxes lm sere. by the Code and such opinion within Congress and by informing extent it exceeds straightline depreciation, other special t x provisions of the Code and the American public of the specific problems (c) depletion deducted to the extent it ex- ther laws a the Secretary of Treasury con- that require urgent correction. ceeds cost depletion, (d) the capital gains oiders apps riate. I would like to concentrate my testimony deduction, and (e) charitable contributions s Es stns of how much the govern- describing the need for a minimum income tax, and which exceed 30 percent of adjusted gross in- (2) ) subsidizes such ow as housing, agri- I my own proposal for such a tax. come. If the total of these five items is less ment subsidizes through the resources rcto direct the I will also discuss briefly the other provisions than $2500 ($5000 in the case of a husband cult r ( tand laws natural areas ex- of a tax reform bill which I will introduce in and wife filing a joint return) no further coi.Ae tax o as compared Federal budget. the Senate today, namely; the requirements minimum tax computation would be re- pridituresion through owsf a the first type of informa- make she type aware of public aware a the an annual report from the Secretary of quired. If the total of the five items exceeds lion is needed of the Treasury indicating the cost of tax pref- these limits, the next step will be taken. the cost of e ormarent to the Treasury, erences to the Treasury and for a report from 3. The taxpayer would reduce the total of_/ thereby calling the attention of the Congress the Secretary of the Treasury showing a com- the five items by $2500 (or by $5000 in tlE t take appropriate action where needed. parison of tax expenditures with budgetary case of a husband and wife filing a jo nt example, such a rmight analyze the For exampl usefulness report expenditures; modifications in the general return) and add the result to this tamable For such it ana analyze ntinued and minimum standard deduction to reduce income under present law. The sum wo d be eeluoions and deductions as those whichtan I the impact on low and middle income tax- his minimum taxable income. have included in the minimum income tax payers, and reductions in advantages present- 4. The minimum-tax taxable in ome ar- base that r am proposing. The cost of these ly accorded to the oil and gas industries. rived at in Step 3 would be nui) iplied by preferences in terms of Federal ,revenue are Minimum income tax the minimum tax rates which ould be 10 as follows: A minimum income tax is needed today be- percent of the first $30,000, percent of Interest exempt under present law on State the next $70,000 and 30 percent of the and local bonds less expenses and interests cause there are too many people in high remainder. allocable to such interest-$1.8 billion; income kraokets who, because they receive 5. The result would be}the minimum tax Depreciation taken on real property to the f the ntl y excluded their from from sources incomme which, if it exceeds tllte tax due under extent Federal million; tax, pay little or no tax. As a result of the of that otherwise imposed. preferential treatment given to certain types These are the p incipal differences be- Depletion deducted to the extent it exceeds of income, individuals in the same income cost depletion--$1.3 billion; tween my bill and that in the Treasury pro- The capital gains deduction (individual bracket but with different sources of income posals: and corporation) $5 billion; have substantially different tax liabilities 1. The minimum-tax taxable income base, so wwhich income excexceed 30 while most other taxpayers must pay a higher under my bills includes charitable deduc- Charitable ad us contributions ed 40 tax burden to provide the Federal Govern- tions only wl}bre the unlimited charitable million. rent j g ment with needed revenue. deduction b#s been used. The Treasury's In 1966, there were 51 individual tax re- proposal cal, for inclusion of the apprecia- Also this type of a report would include turns filed with the IRS with adjusted gross tion in v tae of donated property. information such as the impact of married incomes of $500,000 and over, and represent- a) 2 The ;fiinimum-tax taxable income base, couples filing joint returns on the tax system . ing adjusted gross incomes of $82 million on under m proposal, is computed with taxable which would not be included in the second which no Federal income tax was paid. income .9s a starting point, rather than ad- type of report my bill calls for. In the same year, 34,000 individuals filed usted gross income, as proposed by the The second type of information would be tax returns with adjusted gross incomes in Treasury. extremely valuable to-Congress, and to the excess of $10,000 and paid no Federal taxes. 3, If the five income items to be in- Executive Branch by permitting a clearer in- The combined adjusted gross income of these cluded in the minimum tax base are less sight into the allocation of public resources. Individuals was almost $700,000,000. than $2500 ($5000 in the case of a husband The Treasury made a first attempt in this di- In 1965, one U.S. oil company with a net and wife filing a joint return) no further rection when Secretary Barr provided some income of $105 million paid no Federal in- minimum tax computation is required. Un- of this data in his testimony before the Joint come tax at all. der the Treasury proposal, all the remaining Economic Committee on January 17, 1969. In principle, Congress should face up to tax steps would be required. The Treasury is to be commended for this, preferences-the so-called "loopholes"--and If the five income items to be included and my bill would ensure that such informa- reduce them in the light of new standards of 4. tion will be made a regular part of its An- fairness and equity. But this cannot be ac- in the base exceed $2500 ($5000 in the case nual Report. complished quickly or easily, because on of a husband and wife filing a joint re- Increase in eneraZ and minimum standard examination, some of these preferences may turn), the minimum tax base is arrived at g deduction be found desirable to retain for social: or by reducing the total of the five items by economic reasons. When a taxpayer is inrthe $2500 or $5000, as the case may be, and These provisions of my bill are identical position to take adavntage of a great number adding the result to taxable income under to the changes proposed by the Treasury and of these preferences at one time, the result- present law. Under the Treasury proposals, are included because I believe that the tax ing cumulative effect is the real ineqVity in the unreduced five income-tax items would burden on taxpayers earning under $5,000 our tax system. Aran interim step, thgrefore, be added to present law adjusted gross in- and those earning between $5,000 and $15,000 a minimum tax-below which tax liabilities come. The result then must be reduced by is unduly high and should be reduced. These would not be permitted by reason of these personal exemptions and personal deductions two groups of citizens have carried an in- preferences-should be introduced into the with the added feature of an optional $10,- ordinate share of the burden for too long. system. 000 standard deduction to replace the per- To help low income taxpayers, my bill My proposal for a minimum income tax sonal deductions (standard or itemized) would increase the minimum standard de- covers individuals as well as corporations, taken in the computation of taxable income duction from the present $200 plus $100 for and it takes account of the 10% tax sur- under present law. This calculation is each allowable exemption to $600, plus $100 charge. The minimum would apply only when avoided under my proposal not only to for each allowable exemption, subject to the it exceeds the tax payable under present achieve simplicity, but also to avoid sur- same overall limit of $1,000 that exist-3 under law. My proposal has the same objective as prising and unintentional effects. present law. The Treasury estimates that this the minimum income tax proposed by the Such effects would occur, for example, in provision would put into nontaxable status lia- Treasury Department in its recent Studies the case of two taxpayers with equal mini- 11/4 millionafa iliesiond reduce the ;tax lie- of I million and Proposals, with roughly the same revenue mum tax adjusted gross incomes and per- effect as far as individuals are concerned: sonal exemptions, one of whom had $9000 of in poverty states who are presently subject axes inco Federal other the and itemized 000 ta 1 emi d deductions. The new $ 0 ,000 4st0and- in re venue would be $1 13 bi lionesulting loss a tax some 40, The sultingnineaboutr$400 million ofxpaadyders* Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 S 2704 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March To increase the equity of middle Income taxpayers my bill would raise the general standard deduction to ];4 t- If the understanding I have offered eii Germany to deal with what it de- carries, then I shall vote for the treaty, scribed as the threat of eo-Nazisih despite serious reservations about its AnA it c mitment, an even mor serious vlp~a- _L ueueve that the 1preamble to the e tr treaty, if seriously tin because of its doctrine 'nature, Wien meant and seriously enforced, would the Soviet Government, through the ,o- help to mak th e e peace of the world more called Brezhnev doctrine, proclaimed its secure. any treaty imposes no restrictions of fight to intervene militarily in iY I also intend to offer a second amend- any kind on Red China or France, be- of country. ment, clause they have made it abundantly in the form of an understanding, When I have raised these point$ in urgingthat instead of depositing the clear tdoe they do not intend to It. s sign o does it impose any ostritions of discussion with my friends and cul- instrument of ratification immediately, Nor kind leagues, I have received two different the administration should seek to ar- StaSta es, on and the the Soviet United Union, the United relies. range for the simultaneous deposit of thertes, Uns Kingdom, the First, I have been told that the tie- their instruments cf ratification by the the three treaty. powers who have signed able is not really part of the treaty aid United States and the Soviet Union. of the . treaty, could, under stockpiles terms that a violation of the preamble cam.ot I believe that the junior Senator from of ionsetsn their tockpilm th refore be regarded in the same lilg'iit Rhode Island has raised the question of all of with weapons tenfold, equip them h multiple warheads, and push as l a violation of the articles of the simultaneous ratification. It seems to me their nuclear lear weapons technology at a treaty. From a commonsense stand- that it Is a very good point, a solid one, hundred different points. point, I do not see how it can be argu?.d and one we should earnestly consider. The great danger of thermonuclear war that when one puts one's signature to an I feel that this amendment is called for over the coming decade lies not in the entire document, this signature, never- by the fact that the treaty establishes no fact that several nonnuclear-weapon na- theless, does not have a binding effect as deadline for ratifical;ion. Thus, if we were tions might, if they started this year or far as the preamble of the document is to complete the process of ratification in next year, build a few nuclear weapons concerned, It is worthwhile, noting that the coming week whale the Soviet Union of their own. The danger lies, rather, in the Supreme Court has repeatedly rulA held off on ratification for another year the existence of massive arsenals of nu- that the preamble is part of the Amer- or two, we might find ourselves, so to clear weapons in the hands of the two scan Constitution and that its into it speak, over the diplomatic barrel. must be taken into consideration in any Other efforts will fact that th and C the supplementary interpretation of the Constitution. will, I am told, be made fact that the Red Chinese Government, Government, to improve the quality of the treaty by with all its belligerency and unpredicta- Second, I have received the reply that, attaching understandings or reservations bility, Is already well along the road to even though the Soviet Union signed tl to or amendments to the resolution of stockpiling thermonuclear weapons of treaty last July, the actions to which I ratification. Some of these, hopefully, will its own. referred could not be conaidered vlula- carry. If they do, it would help to ease Neither one of these dangers will be tioiis in the legal sense for the simple the dilemma that confronts me. For i affected one iota by the terms of the reason that the treaty has not yet gore is not a pleasant position to be in: J treaty we are today being called upon into force. believein the principle to which a treaty to ratify. I consider this a pretty flimsy technic: it is directed, and yet to have serious mis- A decade from now, the Nonprolifera- alibi. Perhaps I am old-faslUoned, but as givings about the effectiveness of the tion Treaty, if it is effective, might con- I e the matter, honorable government;>, treaty and about its ability to achieve its v a largere on they have given their nature 0 a stated purpose. war beginning rith nuclear h tre ty, do not then proceed to violate ,t Whether I vote fo: the treaty or wind between smll nations. But the next left and right until the inatant it g4is up voting against it or abstaining, I con- question we have to answer is: into force. Sider it my duty to underscore its es- WILL THE TREATY BE EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING However, I hope that-a majority of in;g sentiai weaknesses, for the information THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS? colleagues, especially in the light of re- of my colleagues and the public and for on this point, I find the testimony cent experience, will see fit to support the sake of the historical record. the following amendment which I interi=d In considering the merits and that has been given is date far frble to offer as an nerstandi tothe reso- weak- reassuring. Indeed, it is highly possible to offer of ratification an unders ng nesses of the treaty, it might be helpful that this treaty may encourage the pro- to do so by posing the following series liferation of nuclear weapons to have- Be it resolved that the resolution or of questions: ratification be amended, viz: Before the not nations, rather than discourage it. period at the end of the resolution of First. Does the treaty in any way serve I say this for the following reasons: to reduce the danger of thermonuclear First. Under this treaty, the nuclear ratification, insert a comma and the fal- war? powers commit themselves to assist sig- Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Second. Will It be effective in prevent- ing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the nonnuclear nations? Third. Will it strengthen or weaken NATO? Fourth. Will it strengthen peace in the Far East? Fifth. Will it reduce the nuclear danger in the Middle East ? Sixth. Will it increase our commit- ments? Seventh. Will it, in terms of its overall impact, better serve the interests of the free world or the interests of Moscow and Peking? Let me attempt to answer these ques- tions in the order in which I have raised them. DOES THE TREATY IN ANY WAY SERVE TO REDUCE THE DANGER OF THERMONUCLEAR WAR? Despite the widespread popular im- pression that the treaty involves some kind of nuclear disarmament on the part of the nuclear powers, this simply is not so. I wish it were so. The fact is that people have been misled by the careless manner in which this treaty has been discussed and by the tendency on the part of some-I am not speaking of any March 11, 1969 pproved Fob ~ g?8 2fE@&W-E74 M#R000300140006-4 S 2657 natories to the treaty in developing "as a matter of law and as a matter of the possession of nuclear, biological and peaceful nuclear facilities of their own. policy" the United States had incurred chemical weapons. Second. There is no clear-cut de- no additional defense obligations under Not only has the German Government maroation between peaceful nuclear ma- the terms of the United Nations so-called itself displayed no desire to acquire such terials and military nuclear materials security guarantee resolution. weapons, but such a desire, if it did exist, nor between peaceful nuclear technology Nor can I blame the Far Eastern na- would be strongly opposed by Germany's more- and military technology. One leads in- United rStbeing ates less Union over, would have Western and the Soviet that enforce evitably into the other. Third. As Atomic Energy Commis- would spring immediately to their de- their opposition because the agreement sioner Seaborg stated in 1966: fense if they were the subject of nuclear between the WEU and the Bonn gov- It is perfectly feasible to build a clandes- attack, or threatened nuclear attack, by tem. ernment calls for a remarkably tight sys- tine chemical-processing plant using readily Red China. of onsite inspection. available technology and equipment. The surest way to deal with the threat The prime objective of the Kremlin in Fourth. The inspection provisions of of Red China, in the opinion of these negotiating this treaty was to undermine the treaty are ambiguous and grossly in- nations, is for them to develop at least NATO. This, indeed, has in recent years adequate. I shall deal with this matter in modest nuclear capabilities of their own, been the announced objective of the So- detail in my further remarks.. so that they would be in a position to viet Government in all of its diplomacy Fifth. The treaty makes no restriction retaliate if they were attacked. vis-a-vis the Western world. Soviet Party of any kind on the delivery by nuclear- Nonproliferation Treaty or no Non- Leader Leonid Brezhnev made this abun- weapons states to non-nuclear-weapons proliferation Treaty, the imperative logic dantly clear in his statement before the states of missiles and other delivery of the situation points to the develop- Conference of European Communist systems. ment of national nuclear capabilities by Parties in Czechoslovakia in April, 1967. Sixth. Although many scientists are the major free nations or China's Let me quote what he said on that convinced it will be possible to produce periphery. occasion: pure fusion, or hydrogen, weapons with- I am disturbed by the prospect of the In weighing the opportunities opened up out the use of fissionable material, the proliferation of nuclear weapons any- by developments in Europe, we cannot by- language of the treaty does not concern where. But it is difficult to find a satis- pass the fact that within two years the gov- factory answer to Asian statesmen when ernments of the NATO countries are to de- guagwith thislyprospect do i Ith "fi the lane they argue that it would be better for the tide whether or not the North Atlantic Treaty e materials," o and d to the equipment "fiused ssionable in Asian nations to have a nuclear deterrent is to be extended. In our opinion it is very mateto leave the countries right that Communists and all progressive processing such materials. of their own than forces are endeavoring to make use of this Seventh. Any signatory can withdraw of the Far East defenseless before Red circumstance in order to develop on an ever- from the treaty on 90 days' notice. Chinese nuclear blackmail, or than to as- wider scale the struggle against preserving Given this combination of circum- sume for ourselves the entire responsi- this aggressive bloc. stances, there is ample reason to fear bility for imposing nuclear restraints not A second objective of the Kremlin in that certain small nations, having used only on the Soviet Union but also on Red negotiating this treaty was to place a the treaty to acquire a nuclear capability China. for themselves, may then proceed de- prohibition on the often discussed pos- on our Already, the relations treaty with has Japan placed a and strain India sibility of a NATO or European nuclear velop clandestine e facilities to produce e nu- and the other holdout nations, and, to deterrent force. clear weapons, and then, at the appro- Even our best friends in Europe feel this extent, has diminished our ability to uneasy over, the present state of affairs, priate moment, may contrive some ex- cuse to invoke the 90-day withdrawal influence the course of events in the Far under which the entire decision on East. clause. whether or not to employ nuclear weap- All of this would be enough to worry THE NONPROLIFERATION TREATY, NATO AND THE ons of any kind in the defense of Europe about, even if all of the non-nuclear- PEACE OF EUROPE remains an exclusive American respon- weapon nations were to adhere to the We have been told that the Nonpro- sibility. These fears, growing from year treaty. But the fact is that we still do liferation Treaty represents a great vic- to year, have seriously eroded the morale not know for certain whether West Ger- tory for American diplomacy and that of the alliance. many will adhere to the treaty or Its cathe tio peace will Europe, dramatically It is true that our present laws pre- whether Israel will adhere to the treaty; treng vent us from turning over the control while the majority of the nations on I only wish that this assessment were or custody of nuclear weapons to any Red China's periphery-Japan, India, true. nation other than Great Britain. But be- Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thai- Actually, as the treaty is now written, fore the Nonproliferation Treaty was land, Australia, and even Burma and it represents a major victory for Soviet negotiated,. there was always the possi- Cambodia-have thus far made it clear diplomacy; it places further serious bility that we might exercise our option that they have no intention of adher- strains on the NATO alliance; it further to assist in the formation of a European ing to the treaty, or else have abstained separates Western Europe from America; or NATO nuclear deterrent force. from signing it. and to the extent that it does these It is to be noted that the creation of THE NONPROLIFERATION TREATY AND THE FAR things, it imperils the peace of Europe a European or NATO nuclear deterrent EAST rather than making it more secure. force would not require any increase in In the case of the Far Eastern na- Although we have been repeatedly as- the present number of nuclear powers. tions who have thus far abstained from sured that our allies were consulted at It would not involve giving nuclear signing, I must in all frankness say I every step, the fact is that our allies were weapons to Germany or Belgium or any cannot blame them for feeling threat- informed rather than consulted. Our nation that does not now possess them. ened by Red China's belligerence and cavalier disregard for their opinions dur- What it would involve, essentially, by her growing nuclear arsenal. ing the negotiation of this treaty by it- would be giving a NATO authority or a Nor can I blame them for feeling that self did the most serious damage to the European authority the power to decide they cannot entrust their future ex- structure of mutual confidence on which at what point nuclear weapons should istence to the flimsy and ambivalent as- the Atlantic Alliance is ultimately based. be employed in the defense of Europe, surance contained in the United Na- The story has gained wide credibility instead of keeping this power of decision tions resolution of June 1968, which that the Soviet Union, in negotiating the an American monopoly. spoke grandiloquently of the U.N. Se- Nonproliferation Treaty, was interested Until we surrendered on this point to curity Council countering a nuclear at- primarily in preventing West Germany the Kremlin in the negotiations for the tack, or the threat of such attack, "by from gaining access to inuclear weapons. Nonproliferation Treaty, we had always measures to be taken in accordance with But,- as Professor Robert Strauz-Huge sought to keep this option open, and even the United Nations Charter." Their con- pointed out in testimony before the For- to encourage it. viction that this resolution is meaning- eign Relations Committee, the Bonn gov- As early as September 1960, President less has been borne out by the recent ernment, under the agreement with the Kennedy called for a "new approach to assurance of the Secretary of State to Western European Union-WEU-which the organization of NATO." He sug- the Foreign Relations Committee that ratified its access to NATO, renounced gested, among other things, that our Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 2658 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000300140006-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March allies "may wish to create a NATQ de- torrent, supplementary to our own, wider 4 NATO nuclear treaty." Two years later, speaking in Copen- liagen, Mr. McGeorge Bundy said: If it should turn out that a genuinely multilateral European deterrent, integrated with ours in NATO, is what is neede and wanted, it will not be a veto Prom the . 4 m1n- i.};tration in the United States whichst:tnds 111 the way. . . . And in August of 1965, speaking before the 18-Nation Disarmament Conference iii Geneva, Ambassador William C. Foster said that if "the nations of Eu- rope wish to achieve some kind of trolit- i al untiy which includes, some central litical authority capable of decidi; in ehalf of all members on the use of au- ear weapons, we feel that reconsidera- tion of the provisions of -the charter for the Atlantic force would be apprp_)ri- ate." In the early drafts of the treaty, as I have pointed out, we sought to keep the European or NATO option open Bien the Kremlin remained adamant, aw- eyer, we gave ground on this car'. nil Point without consulting Our allies. ST.zen we did so, the Soviet tlpion gainc~.:i a major foreign policy objective. The treaty, as it is now worded, reads: Each nuclear-weapon State party tq nis Treaty undertakes not to transfer tq any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices dl- rgctly or indirectly . . . This language would appear to be ir;n- clad. The State Department has offered - he interpretation that the treaty does riot completely prohibit the development of a European nuclear force. According to this interpretation, the treaty would p_-r- l it the establishment of a European l iu- clear force if the European nations zslc- si gle control over defense and foic,gn come the legal inheritor stf the Br'ltisb arid Frendh stockpiles and weapons f ties. p etation relegates the possibility ri a European nuclear force to a distant and a the best uncertain future, the Soytkkis have given no indication that they :ere prepared to accept the vslidity of t"lls interpretation. c nce of this concession or the damage it hits done and will continue to do to the Western alliance. {'HE LOOMING CONFLICT w'f"11 EURATO;1 Further damage is bound to result_ to the Western alliance and to our ties :th our European allies from the con l ct over Euratom which the Nonprolifera.- tin Treaty makes virtuay inevitable. Some of the facts about turatom arid th International Atomic Energy Agency AEA--axe set forth in the record of the hearings before the Foreign Rgla_ tic as Committee. However, I want to re- ca itulate what I consider to be the, fps- se tial facts, because I am convinced fr m many conversations that even well= i ormed members of the public k>tiow nothing or next to nothing about Eura- tom or the IAEA The membership of Euratom, which parallels that of the Common Market, includes Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Having committed themselves to a common program for the development of the atom for peaceful purposes, the Euratom nations :have forged ahead on many fronts and it an amazing rate. Euratom now has four major research centers, and scores of other peaceful fa- cilities under its overall control. For its second 5-year plan, which began in 1967, it budgeted $550,000,000, and this amount, according to reports, will be substantially increased for the coming period. Its staff now includes some 2,800 integrated European civil servants. Both qualitatively and quantitatively, its ef- forts in certain key areas of peaceful atomic research are on a par with our own efforts. Under all the stresses that have char- acterized intra-European relations in re- cent years, Euratom has held up re- markably well. Even France, despite the fact that it has become a nuclear weap- ons power since joining Euratom, con- tinues to submit as of its peaceful facili- ties to Euratom regulations and safe- guard-inspections, and continues to ac- cept the arrangement under which Eu- ratom retains legal title to all of the nu- clear materials used in the various na- tional facilities of its member states. The International Atomic Energy Agency was set up subsequent to Presi- dent Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" speech in 1953. At the present time it has 98 member nations, and a governing body of 25 nations. The board of governors consists of the five major nuclear na- tions and of 20 other nations elected at the annual conference. IAEA has developed very slowly, and this is particularly true of its safeguards and inspection program. As Mr. William Bader points out :.n his book on "The United States and the Spread of Nu- clear Weapons," as late as 1967 IAEA "had a team of only 13 inspectors, in- specting facilities which produced only 6 percent of the world's plutonium out- put." I might say that the book by Mr. Bader is a remarkably scholarly and objective piece of work. I have read it with great interest and I would recommend to all those who are concerned over the spread of nuclear weapons. During the recenb hearings, the points were made that there is no veto in the IAEA governing board, while individual member nations do have the right to veto specific inspectors who may be assigned to them by IAEA. I cannot help wonder- ing whether these answers do-not seek to avoid the very real political problem that would arise if our own country or any other non-Communist member of IAEA were to refuse to accept not merely a Soviet inspector but all inspectors of Bulgarian, Czechoslovak, Polish, or other Communist nationality. The Euratom nations are convinced that their own inspection procedures are adequate for the purposes of the Nonpro- liferation Treaty, a,nd they are under- 11, 1969 standably reluctant to surrender the in- tegxtty of this effective regional sys- tem, by submitting their facilities to IAEA inspection under the Nonprolifera- tion Treaty system. Indeed, this would be a violation of their obligations under the Euratom Treaty. It has been stated repeatedly by Amer- ican spokesmen, and this was recently repeated before the Foreign Relations Committee by Atomic Energy Chairman Seaborg, that we regard. Euratom safe- guards as satisfactory and that we an- ticipate the negotiation of an agreement between Euratom and IAEA, governing inspection under the Nonproliferation Treaty. In his testimony of last July 12, Dr. Seaborg said: I believe the IAEA and Euratom will suc- ceed in developing a mutually satisfactory safeguards arrangement. I base this confi- dence an my belief first, tl tt the IAEA and Euratom safeguards systems are generally compatible, and second, that the IAEA will wish two take advantage of the Euratom pro- cedures wherever it can in developing the arrangements, bearing in mind that the Euratom system has worked effectively for many years. Moreover, the Euratom nations believe that if they are subordinated to IAEA, it is politically inevitable that some of the inspectors, if they are given access to Euratom facilities, will have a supple- mentary function to perform. I want to note at this point that, un- der the IAEA system, its inspectors have the right and responsibility, I quote, "to examine the design of specialized equip- ment and facilities, including nuclear re- actors, and to approve it only from the viewpoint of assuring that it will not further any military purpose." I also want to note at this point that the Soviet Union has already expressed misgivings about the fast breeder reactor program which Euratom has been devel- oping with its members and the United States, apparently on the grounds that this might have military implications. The four Euratom nations who have signed the treaty-Italy, Belgium, Neth- erlands, Luxembourg-have all attached the reservation that their ratification will be contingent upon the possibility of negotiating a satisfactory agreement on inspection between Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency. West Germany, if she joins the Treaty, will almost certetinly attach the same reservation as her Euratom partners. France, of course, will not join the treaty, and will not submit to any IAEA inspection procedures supplementary to Euratom's own safeguards. There is a good deal of reason for fear- ing that no arrangement will be possible that satisfies both Euratom and the IAEA. Thus, 1 or 2 years hence, we may discover that, after all the agonizing and all the pressuring and all the debate, our Euratom allies will choose to invoke their reservation and opt out of the Nonprolif- eration Treaty rather than surrender certain of their key prerogatives to the IAEA. Despite the optimism which Dr. Sea- borg and others have expressed over the possibility of working out an agreement between IAEA and Euratom, there is ab- Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 March 11, 1969 Approved For P solutely no assurance from the Soviet side that it would be willing to accept an arrangement under which Euratom con- tinues to inspect its own facilities and simply reports to IAEA under a verifica- tion arrangement. On the contrary, the chances are that the Soviets will insist that IAEA should have the physical responsibility for in- specting Euratom facilities. If such an impasse does develop, we -would then be confronted with a major dilemma. If we did nothing, then the Nonprolif- eration Treaty would probably fall apart. And if we attempted to bludgeon our Euratom allies by withholding nuclear material under the requirements of the treaty, the consequences for the future of both Euratorn and NATO would be grave and unpredictable. THE TREATY AND THE PEACE OF THE MIDDLE EAST In the Middle East, the treaty, if it were applied at an early date and if it were vigorously enforced, might very well help to defuse, or partially defuse, the possibility that the Arab-Israeli conflict will escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. But even here, where it could do the most good, the treaty appears to be hope- lessly inadequate. First, it will take more than 2 years before the inspection system envisioned by the treaty becomes fully effective. And second, even when it be- comes effective, the inspection proce- dures, at the best, will be anything but foolproof. The treaty does not spell out the terms of inspection; these are to be negotiated bilaterally at a much later date between the signatory nations and the Interna- tional Atomic Energy Agency. As I pointed out in an earlier state- ment, we are, in effect, being asked to ratify half a treaty, a very important portion of which still remains to be written. The treaty language appears to sug- gest that the rules of inspection under these bilateral agreements will have to parallel the IAEA safeguards system. But if this is so, why does the Treaty not say simply that non-nuclear-weapons nations, in subscribing to the Treaty, automatically place themselves under the IAEA and accept its inspection system? Why the need for separate agreements? Why permit a delay of six months after is just the beginning of a Cuban nuclear the effective date of a treaty before the program which is to be greatly expanded S 2659 few years if they are helped to do so by the Russians. Such a development would cer- tainly prove a serious danger to our security. -In considering the question whether or not such a development will occur, one may re- member that in the case of China, Russia first provided help then withdrew the help. The Chinese, nevertheless, proceeded to per- fect nuclear weapons, although this develop- ment was somewhat delayed. On a purely technical basis it is, of course, impossible to predict what decisions Moscow will make and whether or not effective help for the devel- opment of a nuclear capability will be given. Mr. President, because I know my col- leagues will be interested in Dr. Teller's views, I ask unanimous consent to in- sert at the conclusion of my remarks the complete text of the questions I ad- dressed to Dr. Teller and of his replies to them. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are several additional reasons for believing that the rapidly expanding nuclear pro- gram which Castro is carrying out with Soviet assistance poses a very serious threat to our security. First of all, it is impossible not to be concerned over the testimony of Secre- tary of State Rogers that there is noth- ing in the treaty that would prevent the Soviet Union from giving rockets to other nations, so long as these rockets were not equipped with nuclear war- heads. Under the treaty, therefore, the Soviet Union can supply missiles to Cuba, while Cuba, with her own nuclear facilities, could build warheads to mate to them. Finally, it is impossible not to be con- cerned over an expanding nuclear capa- bility in Cuba when one recalls the facts of the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. Over this past weekend, by accident, I happened to read "Thirteen Days," a book written by our late revered col- league, Senator Robert Kennedy, in which he recounts the story of what went on in the White House during those fateful October days. Among other things, he relates how Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko at the United Nations and Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin in Washington repeatedly and categorical- ly denied that the Soviet Union had emplaced offensive missiles in Cuba or that it had any intention of doing so. The monstrous deception practiced by Gromyko and Dobrynin on that occasion is of more than passing interest in con- nection with the present Cuban situa- tion, because Gromyko is still the For- eign Minister of the Soviet Union and Dobrynin is still the Soviet Ambassador to Washington. Given the history of the recent past, I believe we would have plent to worry about in Cuba, even if Cuba were to ac- cept IAEA inspection. There is no reason for believing, however, that Cuba will accept even this fragmentary safeguard. If this turns out to be the case, then, at the point where the Nonproliferation Treaty goes into force, the Moscow- Havana agreement on nuclear assistance would automatically constitute a legal violation of the treaty. signatory nations even enter into nego- over the coming years. So, a few years tiations on inspection agreements, and from now we may find that Cuba has a delay of an additional eighteen months several nuclear powerplants of substan- before such agreements are concluded? tial size, and other nuclear facilities, de- The IAEA rules, as they are now writ- clared and undeclared. ten, provide for inspection only of de- This would give Cuba the capability, clared nuclear facilities; and the IAEA especially if there were no inspection of inspectors do not have the right to carry these facilities, to build up a significant- out an inspection anywhere else, even if nuclear arsenal. they have reasons to suspect clandestine Because I wanted some expert opinions activity. on certain implications of the Nonpro- Even if the IA.,EA procedures were more liferation Treaty, I addressed a series of satisfactory, the Agency for a long time questions to Dr. Edward Teller. Among to come, as Congressman HosMER has other things, I asked him whether the pointed out, simply will not have the Cuban situation poses a danger to the means or the trained inspectors essential security of the United States. This is to supervise peaceful nuclear weapons what he replied: programs in scores of non-nuclar-weap- There is nothing to prevent Cuba from ons nations, developing a nuclear capability in the next THE SPECIAL CASE OF CUBA I have spoken about three violations of the intent of the Nonproliferation Treaty on the part of the Soviet Union. I now wisli to call the attention of my colleagues to a fourth violation of the intent of this treaty and one, which, in my opinion, poses a very grave danger to the security of the United States. In November of last year the Soviet Union completed work on a nuclear reac- tor in Cuba; and on January 8 of this year a nuclear agreement was signed be- tween Havana and Moscow under which Moscow undertook to help Cuba expand its nuclear program. The occasion was marked by a major broadcast made over Havana radio on January 9 by Dr. Antonio Nunez-Jimi- nez, president of the National Commis- sion of the Cuban Academy of Sciences. Although this speech was monitored in full in our country, I recall seeing no reference to it in our press. At one point in his speech, Dr. Jimi- nez said that Cuba could now branch out into atomic research, and, I quote, "for this development, the Soviet Union is supplying not only the scientific material, but also the research." He also said that "the Soviet Union helped us by training, in the best Soviet centers, the first Cuban engineers and nuclear physicists who will join this in- stitute within the next few months." Finally, he revealed that there are 231 top Russian scientists now serving in Cuba with 222 more due to arrive. When I raised this matter with Chair- man Seaborg in the course of the recent hearings, he replied that the nuclear re- actor which the Soviet Union had in- stalled in Cuba was essentially a research facility. If I understood him correctly, the limited size of the facility made it improbable that Cuba could use it to build nuclear warheads within the next 10 years. It was unclear from his answer wheth- er he was talking about one warhead or many warheads. However, on rereading the record, it appears to me that Chair- man Seaborg may have misunderstood my question. It is not just a matter of the experi- mental nuclear reactor which the Soviet Union has already installed in Cuba. It is evident from the announced terms of Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 2660 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 11, 1969 Article III, paragraph 2 of the treaty If the Soviet Gove stipulates that the rnment, for exam- the threat contained in Brezhnev's state- signatory states will pie, had agreed to use its very great in- ment about the right to intervene in any riot provide equipment or materials for fluence over the North Vietnamese Gov- so-called socialist country. And I say to peaceful purposes to any nonnuclear- ernment to bring about a settlement of myself, "For Heaven's sake, what does all Weapons state, "unless the source or spe- the Vietnam conflict, such a concession this mean?" They have agreed to sign cial fissionable material shall be subleet on their part might have been worth this treaty, and already, according to the to the safeguards required by this .rti- the concessions we made to them at the preamble, they have violated it several ole?? expense of NATO. Indeed, such a quid times over. The preceding paragraph-paragraaph pro quo would have been understood That worries me. 1, article III-stimulates that non;au- even by our NATO allies. I would like to see the treaty ratified, cear-weapons states receiving peaceful It is conceivable that the Nixon ad- but I would also like to see it strength- nuclear assistance must enter into agree- ministration has, in return for the Non- ened. I would like to see us more secure, n ents with IAEA, based on the agency's proliferation Treaty, received some as- with respect to the hazards that exist, as standard safeguards system, for, the surance of significant reciprocal actions I see them. purpose of preventing the diversion of on the part of the Soviets, about which I think this can be done. I hope, there- nuclear materials for peaceful uses to it is not in a position to make any pub- fore, that the understandings I have of- nuclear weapons. lie statement. I earnestly hope that this fered will be acceptable to the Senate. While this clause does not necessarily is so, because the existence of such an involve adherence to the treaty, it wor:=ld, understanding would make the treaty - EXHIBIT l as I see the matter, require adherence to more palatable to niany of us. But in the QUSTIOrrs From: Senator TiiomAs . a separate agreement with the JA1:A, absence of any firm knowledge of such To: Dr. Edward Teller. J DODD. w lch would more or less parallel the an arrangement, all that any Senator Re: Nonproliferation Treaty. r uirements imposed on those can do is to assess the treaty on the basis 1. Question: How difficult would it be for cl ar-weapons states who do sign the of its merits as he sees them, nuclear have-not nations, once they are pro- traty. It is my hope that, when this debate is vided with nuclear facilities under the terms Eiowever, the Castro goPelnment l;aS over, I shall be able to cast my vote in of the Nonproliferation Treaty, to use these not merely refused to sign the Nuc car support of the Nonproliferation Treaty, facilities capability? give themselves a nuclear mili- ta Test Ban Treaty and the treaty prohibit- despite the reservations I have expressed. Answer: The bottleneck in producing fis- in nuclear arms in Latin America, but it it is my hope that the faith of our Sion bombs is the availability of an appro- h openly declared that, I,quote, "Cuba negotiators and of the Senate Foreign priate quantity of U285 or Pu239. Powerful wi 1 never renounce her inalienable rights Relations Committee who have given so nuclear reactors having a thermal power of to defend herself with weapons of, say much time and effort to the treaty, will 1,000 megawatts or more, will produce ample kid" despite any international agree- be vindicated by the course of events, amounts of Pu239. To erect appropriate m nt that may be reached.; The word;. I and that this treaty will lead to further chemical separation plants will raise con- already have quoted come from a statement made and more significant measures in the field available. difficulties it they am not ea This difficulty can most probably the United Nations last May by Cub in of arms control and disarmament. be overcome by a a determined effort t in in two Foreign Minister Dr. Raul Roa. It is my hope, too, that the Soviet -or four years. Furthermore, in the natural If the Nonproliferation Treaty iq to Government and the other Communist course of events chemical plants applicable have any serious meaning for the sec.i- governments of Europe, under the in- to Separation of plutonium will be estab- rit of the United States, then it is im- fluence of the liberalizing ferment of lished. pe ative that the Soviet Union, within recent years, will gradually evolve in the While it is generally believed that the the framework of the treaty or direction of more open societies, with stechno in ecrecy erected around nuclear weapons it, cooperate with the United States in whom broader and more meaning not n meaningful not n loon will impede development h which ations, these good evidence which preventing the most lunatic, govermmieat agreements will be possible. shows that this,is not the case. None of the in the Western Hemisphere from de'i'e-l- Whatever differences may have been present five nuclear nations had difficulty on op ng a military nuclear capability of, its expressed in the course of this historic this score and studies performed by unin- ow . debate, the debate has had the advan- formed. Individuals for the purpose of veri- nd if the Soviet Govex ment is n )t tage of demonstrating to the world that fying the efficacy of secrecy have shown that prepared to cooperate With,kls in plaC l ig the U.S. Government and the U.S. Sen- essentially correct solutions on paper will nu leer restraints on the Castro govejri i ate are willing to ga the extra mile and be obtained by capable individuals in a rapid m t, then, despite all the_good inter- more in the interest of peace, and that and reliable manner, Secrecy may provide dos of the men who negotiated it on our we are willing to accept even important with someater in e the tdevel pment of tthern onu leartex- sid , the Nonproliferation Treaty May risks in order to move one step further plosives. to out to be a dangerous fraud on tie along the road of arms control. la. Question: Is the supplementary tech- American people. Herein lies one of the great redeeming nology necessary to convert peaceful nuclear believe that this is a miler on whit h virtues of the treaty now before us, materials into weapons-grade plutonium, Congress should seek clarification befp:,e EXECUTIVE UNDERSTANDINGS NOS. 2 AND a simple and inexpensive enough to make this it casts its final vote on the treaty, technology accessible to small countries? Mr. President, I submit two under- Answer: This technology Is neither simple CONCLUSION standings to the re3olution of ratifica- nor inexpensive. On the other hand, a sharp the Communists are without question tion and ask that they be printed and distinction between reactor-grade plutonium the hardest, most calci4ating, mp,st lie on the table. and weapons-grade plutonium is not valid. rut less practitioners of the art of d- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The un- This distinction has been mistakenly over- plo icy in history. And yet, despite tl a derstandings will be received and printed, emphasized, even during discussion of the sor y record of our experience with them, and will lie on the table. that Baruch the plan. It composition of wishful plutoniu to w ill i believe against persist in offering them major u>}uania flo - ished culturally intellectually, and pol4r t- ically. This progress was cut short, howev r, by forced occupation by the U S S. C, under whose oppressive and tyranrjie domination the people of Lithuania still suffer. the dedication of the United States }to' the right to freedom and independeny#~1e; that we stand today to commemorate t the dependent nation, to reaffirm our sup- port) for justice, and to keep alive t e spirit and hope for the day when Lith ania and all captive nations will on e again enjoy the exercise of the principl s of liberty and self-determination. The memorandum from the Lithu4- niani Christian Democratic Union Ce - tral 'iCommittee is an eloquent expre sion of the courage, ideals, and goals 4f the Lithuanian people, and it is an hon r to include it here: LIT$IUANIAN CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC UNION MEMORANDUM To t4e Honorable Members of the U.S. Senaie and the House of Representatives: 1 Today marks the Fifty-First Anniversa of the restoration of the independence 4f j Lithuania, once an ancient civilizatio4 ' whose roots reach to the second century anal; its kingdom to the thirteenth; that of a na1- Ord as as distinctive as it was progress1v? It is ragic therefore, that this anniversar is overshadowed by the brutal fact that Lith uanial today bears the heavy yoke of Soviet imperialism, Act ng in conspiracy with the Nazi re gime--see "Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941' excerpts attached-the Soviet Union broke other Baltic Republics into their slave em- school there, went on to Stanford Uni- pire. .. -_- and Ilounced this aggression, and all ealcal school, then returned to Tur- trations since then have affirm is stand lock to operate the Lillian Collins Hos- and have opposed thisbruta nvri,ion and pital with his father, also a physician forced annex ti a on. He founded Medic Alert Foundation after It is difficult to conceive that during the his daughter Linda nearly died from a present rise of many forn}er colonies to their severe anaphylactic reaction to a tet- rightly deserved natio?zA1 independence, a uania, anus antitoxin skin test. ti 1964 de shroud of silence is msintained about Lith- re- and the other ,4'',oviet occupied coun- tired from medical practice to devote ote tries whose traditiog;; of statehood reach full time to Medic Alert. He and the back for many centuries. foundation's directors serve without It is even more difficult to conceive that remuneration. all the internatiol)al grimes committed by This is a dramatic story, MY. Speaker, the Soviet Union are still not rectified, nor and I am confident you and our ; col- the criminal puni ed. It is indeed a crime leagues will be interested in the follow- indulge in itself in that Kre fin is still permitted to Ing brief article from the Stockton, Calif., interns ians.l rape, as in the case of Czechoslovakia st a few short months Record of January 4, giving a few strik- ago, ing examples of how Medic Alert has It is time to raise uch questions before saved the lives of people who might have international forums aI to seek coBclemna- died but for the bracelet on their arms: tion of the Soviet Union or its genocidal ac- THE TINY TAG THAT COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE tions. It is also time to in stigate the illegal seizure of Lithuania and th other countries (By Dick Kleiner) of Eastern Europe and to t roughly study One day in 1953, a teenage girl in Turlock the prevailing conditions in these countries, cut her finger. Because of that incident, the results of which should be ads public. today more than 300,000 people believe their At this time there is a plan s mitted by lives may have been saved-or may someday H. Con. The girl's name is Linda Collins. When she Con- cut her finger, 15 years ago, she was taken gress with respect to the incorporatlpn of to a hospital where the attending physician Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the Anion gave her a routine patch test before admin- , of Soviet Socialist Republics." istering tetanus antitoxin, to see if she was We ask all of you to support this Resoltl- allergic to that serum. She was, in fact, so tion. It is one definite way in which you cap allergic that the patch test alone put her in help us in our fight for liberty and justice. a coma for four days. Very respectfully subraitted, A full shot undoubtedly would have killed A. J, KASULArrIS, President, Central Committee. K. ALGIMANTAS PAUTIENIS, Chairman, Commission on Interna- tional Relations. THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND WEAR MEDIC ALERT EMBLEM THAT SAVES LIVES HON. JOHN S. McFALL OF CALIFCRNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, February 25, 1969 Mr McFALL M S . . r. peaker, it is a four major bilateral treaties: ' source of pride to me that my district is 1. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of March ~, the home of the Medic Alert Foundation, 1918 in which the Soviet Union forever re' nounced all claims to Lithuania. t a charitable, nonprofit organization dedi- 3. The Non-Aggression Pact Of Septembe}1 28, 1926, which was later extended to 1945. 4. The Soviet imposed Mutual Assistant Pact or October 10, 1939. On Tune 15, 1940, with the above trestle in fulll force and effect, the military forces o Soviet Union occupied the territory of Lith? uama, attack Estoni matic cated to the purpose of saving lives. metal emblems worn on the wrists or necks of some 300,000 persons in the United States and other countries On . the emblem is noted some hidden or k special medical problem for which they require certain treatment or care. It also carries the Medic Alert serial number of the wearer and the telephone number of Medic Alert's headquarters in TurloEk, Calif., where medical records of each litical persecutions culminated in mass exec utionsl, and deportations to the Siberian wastelands. Many sources place the numberl of sucp~ Baltic victims at the one million mark. Several weeks later, the Soviets staged, mock elections and as the result of these,!; forcibly incorporated Lithuania and the' member are on file. Thus, in an emer- gency, they are saved from the V.Vrong treatment or people who assist them are alerted to their need fo:, specialized care. This lifesaving organization was founded by Dr. Marion Carter Collins, a resident of Turlock who attended high her. Her father and her mother naturally rorried that someday a doctor, unaware of Co ins' father was a doctor- Dr. Marion Col ns-and he worried with direction. warning any police or doctors who might treat ;Linda in the event of an accident. He knew s. card in her wallet might not be dis- covered until too late. He knew the girl's vanity ;would not stand for a tattoed notice. Then`: came the idea which has become the Medic Alert Foundation-a bracelet tag with the wo 'ds, "Allergic to Tetanus Antitoxin" engrave on it. Morehan 3,000 people a month now join Medic lert, and wear tags around their wrists necks. These warn of many poten- tial daibgers-diabetes, epilepsy, various al- lergies? heart conditions, neck breathing, hemopkilia, even such items as that the wearer=is a scuba diver (and could fall victim to thq bends as long as two hours after he leave the water) or that he wears contact lens 'which must be taken out before they scratch the retina). edit Alert today is a big organization. Wat started out with one member-Linda C llins-has grown. Dr. Collins and his wife used to do all the ,work themselves, in their playroom after he :'finished his day's calls. Now the foundation has a neat yellow building catty-corner from Turlock's town hall, with paid workers and many local volunteer ladies going through the mail and filling the orders and engrav- ing the bracelets. Each tag contains information as to the wearer's condition-so it is readily noted in case of emergency-plus an identifying number and the telephone number of Medic Alert. If the wearer is in an accident, the doctor who treats him can call for more in- formation, which is kept on file in a fireproof room here. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 February 25, 1969Approved For 18e ONAL tiURb RDgi 0fy64R000300140006-4 S 2043 CON WA "The liberation of our fatherland is a con- Furthermore, the most important na- Without such a reservation we will see tribution to the national liberation move- tions which have the technological capa- a continuation of two trends which are ment of the whole world ... The SVN people bility to build nuclear weapons for them- now clearly evident in Europe. These two take the task of defeating U.S. imperialism selves in the near future have not signed trends result from U.S. Policy of uni- in SVN as support for the people of Laos, the treaty either. These include West laterally changing its posture regarding Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Congo. . . . If the U.S. . . . can be defeated Germany, Israel, Italy, and Japan-all western defenses without consultation or and in SVN, it will be possible to defeat it any- of them our strong allies in international taki ating into consideraation the awishe B td where in the world." affairs. The communists' world-wide propaganda Clearly the Nonproliferation Treaty heighten the dangers of the United effort on the Vietnam war is probably greater does not affect the more than 100 nuclear States becoming isolated in western and better coordinated than any other propa- "have not" nations which have no re- Europe, ganda campaign in history. The propaganda din is well calculated to confuse. Contribut- sources to become nuclear powers. They The first trend, that is to develop na-nuc most ing to public c confusion is the dearth of of news give up absolutely nothing by signing evident inlear Francee a though thexesr a reporting from communist areas where few the treaty. reporters are admitted, while some 500 for- Finally, the treaty says that any nation growing element in West Germany and eign newsmen of at least 20 nations freely can completely withdraw from it on 3- Italy that advocates this position. The observe and report virtually all that trans- months notice if it feels 'a supreme French believe the U.S. commitment to pires in South Vietnam. It becomes increas- need to do so. defend Europe cannot be taken seriously. ingly difficult to distinguish between the Another important shortcoming of the They further believe the United States treaty is inspection. You recall how im- and the Soviet Union will try to reach propaganda-induced arguments and the nor- mal differences opinion about national policy, strategy, and tactics. The individual portent inspection was in the Limited an agreement, a sort of international citizen is saddled with an awesome task of Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Nonprolifera- condominium in which the final Euro- differentiating between fact and propaganda tion Treaty provides for inspection by an pean settlement will be made over the fiction, a distinction necessary to the safe- agency of the United Nations that today heads of Europeans, East and West. Con- guarding of American democratic processes. has about 15 inspectors and virtually sequently, French strategy is to develop no funds. And, nothing in the treaty says its own defenses and be independent of NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION where more inspectors will come from, any integrated command structure. It EA what their standards will be, or who will obviously follows that once a nation is pay for them. Russia already has refused convinced that its alliance partner will Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I have of- to allow any inspectors on its territory. not defend it, it will prepare its own fered for the Senate's consideration a Another difficulty with the treaty defenses. The French have done this by reservation to the Nuclear Nonprolifera- which troubles some Senators is the im- becoming the fourth nuclear power. They tion Treaty which will soon be before us. plied idea that free world nuclear powers pulled out of the integrated command It is a reservation to preserve what is will defend any nonnuclear nation of NATO because, first, they fear the popularly known as the "NATO option." against nuclear attack from the Com- United States will involve Europe in a As a member of the Committee on munist world. Taken literally that would war without consulting its allies as in Armed Services, I have devoted many mean we were committed to start nuclear the Cuban alert of 1962, and second, the months of study to this treaty. I feel war an behalf of every tiny nation on integrated command under American that I must now speak very candidly earth. Clearly, we cannot agree to that, control will make the defense of France about it. I frankly do not think it but this treaty raises and does not an- dependent curious fact but nevertheless amounts to much. Its substantive provi- swer the question. sions change virtually nothing about in- The major conflict of interest be- true that American arms negotiations ternational nuclear control. Our Euro- tween the Soviet Union and the United with the Soviet Union and other secret pean allies tell me it causes them seri- States in examining the proposed nu- negotiations have had the effect of pro- ous problems. And, I find that the only clear nonproliferation treaty is this, liferating nuclear weapons by encourg- possible value this . Nonproliferation Is it possible to reconcile U.S. interest ing the French to develop their own pro- Treaty could have would be as a bilateral, in strengthening NATO and Moscow's gram and to pull out of NATO's coth- political maneuver between the United objective in weakening it? Specifically mand structure. States and the Soviet Union-a maneu- applied to Germany the question is: The second trend in Europe is the op- ver which both our old and new adman- Can the United States keep Ger- posite of the first and is most noticeable istrations think might be a small step- many from following the example of among the smaller European countries ping stone toward further talks and ne- France-and China-in developing na- although there is some support for it in gotiations between the two super powers. tional nuclear weapons and at the same Germany because of Germany's exposed But, I still have grave doubts that the time keep her a satisfied member of the position. This trend is one toward ac- political value of this treaty, outweights Western Alliance? In its present form commodation with the Soviet Union. its admitted shortcomings. I cannot give the Nonproliferation Treaty will destroy Here it is entirely possible to envision a my approval to it unless a number of its the NATO option and encourage Ger- series of treaties which will effectively provisions are clarified, many and other states of western Europe destroy NATO and render Western At the very least, I hope all Ameri- to acquire nuclear weapons. A secondary Europe a continent of Finlands. The ulti- cans will realize that this Nonprolifera- aspect of this is the fact that the pro- mate effect of this will be to shift the bal- tion Treaty is most unlikely to change posed treaty is the vehicle upon which ance of power to the Soviet state because anything about the way nuclear weapons recent German frustration has been cen- all of Europe will be under its political are handled. It provides no disarmament. tered. Although these frustrations result suzerainty. Both of these trends should I do not want any of us to expect mira- from other things they nevertheless have be alarming for the United States. I be- Iles from this treaty even if it is even- attached themselves to the treaty. lieve that if one or more NATO nations tually ratified by the Senate. In the military area the proposed acquire nuclear weapons, most of the Let me explain briefly some of my con- treaty does two things which genuinely others will be forced to follow because an cerns. The treaty's central provisions alarm many west Europeans. First, it atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust seek to forbid the five countries with prevents a purely defensive ABM system will have been generated. nuclear weapons from giving them to under either NATO or national control. In less than 100 years, three major nonnuclear nations. Domestic U.S. law Second, it precludes other NATO nu- the wars j have started in Europe because the already prevents us from doing that. clear defenses. Great Britain gives no nuclear weapons For these two, reasons, I have offered a individual European states. Whatever away. Neither does the Soviet Union- reservation which should be attached to the faults TOst and had the the Warsaw l t of but treaties never have prevented the the treaty preserving the option to estab- Pact, they haave e aotd European je ffectiof Soviets from doing whatever they wanted lish Atlantic nuclear defenses. This re- wres hich ignited the spauro a war. anyhow. tention of the NATO option in the NNPT The other two nuclear powers-France was included in all proposals made by A group of European states each hav- and Red China-have said they would Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy ing individual nuclear weapons could not sign the treaty at all; so it does not and, initially at least, by President be a dangerous development for thie affect them. Johnson. United States. Curiou however, Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 S2044 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 25, 1969 treaty will not prevent a nation from act- give each of our partners the feeling of powers will urgently pursue nuclear dis- ing in its own national self interest. security and the ability to influence their armament in order to end the discrim- Peace is not assured by treaties. A treaty own destinies and defense, and at the ination which it will establish between and the political pressure which accom- same time prevent them from acquiring nuclear and nonnuclear powers. However, panies it to force a nation to renounce national control of nuclear weapons. It in the light of Soviet proponderance in a capability of self defense is inviting will also pave the way for the withdrawal conventional armaments and their im- disaster. The basic irritant in German- of some 'U.S. troops because a credible mediate threat to West Germany, many American relations in the last 8 years nuclear deterrent will in my judgment Germans believe it essential that the has been the feeling on the part of many negate the need: for American troops of disarmament pledge should be extended Germans that the United States forces any sizeable number. them to do something against their best Our European allies have special prob- to. convention weans For all th se reasoons, Mr. president, I wishes but that Germany has no alter- lems with this treaty. They all hope for hope that my reservation will be adopted. native but to do what the United States the day when Europe can become more I ask unanimous consent that there be wants. There may come a time however united. As a step toward eventual polit printed at the conclusion of m remarks - a resurgent Germany will decide ical unity they Hope for unified defense a summary of developments in the U.S. that it is capable of defending itself If agreements. Yet, this treaty would for- negotiating position on this treaty as it it had nuclear weapons and will move to bid a unified European defense command affects the NATO option question. acquire them. This can be prevented as from having nuclear weapons with which i also ask that there be printed in the long as Germany is convinced that her to confront the existing Soviet threat. RECORD an article by the former Italian security is guaranteed, and what can be The treaty provides for an agreement ambassador to the United States, the said about Germany can be said about between the International Atomic En- Honorable Sergio Fenoaltea. The article each of the other NATO countries. A ergy Agency in Vienna-IAEA-and the elaborates on the problems which the reservation should be attached to the Common Market nuclear agency-Eura- treaty causes our European allies. treaty which reads as follows: tons-within 2 years. But it bans the de- There being no objection, the items Subject to the reservation that such treaty livery of nuclear material even for peace- were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, shall not be construed as precluding the pro- ful purposes, to any signatory of the as follows: vision of weapons or other materials for the treaty after those g years arq.up, whether SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO RE- establishment of nuclear defense to regional organizations established under Article 52 of or not,a s ti fac cry agreement between TREAT OF U.S, NEGOTIATING POSITION REGARD- the Charter of the United Nations. i Euratom and the Vienna Agency has ING NATO OPTION IN NUCLEAR NONPROLIF- Therefore, if This reservation which would retain Germans sign the treaty they ou d ebe oERATION n August 29, Y1957, the U.S. In oo-o the NATO option reflects the position of forced to delay ratification until such tion with three other pera- the United States on tYte Nonpro]ifera- an powers (France, ed a would ed Kingdom) '.tion Treaty up until October, 1966. Italian Goven Government has stated this same ads, scheme and that the United restrict nuclear prollfera- The curious thing to me about this intention in sign: ng the treaty. tion but at the same time require nuclear draft treaty, the arguments for it, Is that Keeping Euratom as the controlling able mnationsate arial al fo r watheir on purpose of fieav at the proponents of the treaty in many organ of inspection for Europe, if the the pooli tt on purposes. A caveat could b transfer was that cases are the very people who advocate treaty is signed is a vital issue for Ger- nuclear weapons nonproliferation troop withdrawal from western Europe. many, not only because they have eonfl- dividalor collective self-defense.ed for in- They favor the treaty because of a fear dence in the fairness of its methods of in- Initially U.S. position envisioned some nu- of nuclear war, and anything that can spection, but because the preservation of clear sharing arrangement within the frame- be sold to them, whether it be the doc- Em-atom's authority and influence is work of multi-national alliances like NATO trine of flexible respone, the nuclear vital to European integration, of which but it sought to reduce nuclear weapon pro- test ban treaty, etc. is, desirable. They it is one of the pillars. Unionn as well as proliferation. Thee soviet feel that the United States should have The fervent German desire for further Union on September 2h 165ll reective acing {every option open to defend itself or de- European integration also leads to bitter ofOn~uclear wespecially eapons. the cothe U sharing end its allies without resorting to nu- disappointment because the treaty closes tions adopted ang. Igeneral 195 resolution the United urging lear weapons. And yet the only thing the door to any collective European mul- efforts to be undertaken toprevennuclear hat even in a remote way enables us to tilateral nuclear force as well as to any proliferation. have some degree of flexible response In Atlantic or NATO nuclear force--such In 1961, the United States undertook its Europe is the presence of U.S. troops, as General Norsi;ad once proposed as first significant change in its position. It which conceivably though I doubt It, NATO commander, or such as the United abandoned the transfer of nuclear weapons prevents a Soviet or east European mill- States later officially proposed in the MLF for defense turned to itive snarl nations. Lary probe into western Europe. Zf we plan for an Atlantic nuclear naval force. But It still retained of Its policy. sharing under orce our NATO allies to renounce; own- The U.S. Government has assured the an alliance as a part August 17, 1965, ership of nuclear weapons in an alliance Germans that a truly federated or united issue From 1962 to August ece the main iyrstem at the same time that we are states of Europe, which included France proliferation at the Geneva conference on nagree- ee- seiously considering withdrawing troops, and/or Britain, would be permitted under ment-would preventunuclear sharing ar ange- theri we have left ourselves with no the treaty to have its own nuclear force ments within a collective defense organiza- flexible response. In the event of a probe on the grounds that such a European fed- tion like NATO. The Soviet Union was anx- cross the Elbe River we are left i with eration would be a "successor state" to ious to make sure it did, whereas the U.S. either an ultimatum to the Soviet union one of the present nuclear powers. How- did not want to close the door on possible nd the threat of nuclear war or we'imlust ever, not only have the Russians refused arrangements within NATO. C quiesce 111 Soviet occupation of w tern to accept this American interpretation, On August 17, 1965, the 'U.S. made the sec-ond major uropean territory. Temporarily at ,least but European critics believe that even the concept of nuclear s position. It retained those who favor troop withdrawal from the American interpretation to be broad- the total number of nuclearnsta estdid l t not Europe are not in a majority. Bu the ened so as to recognize the right of Euro- increase. Ambassador Foster stated that this pressures will surely 'grow to brin the pean confederation to have its own nu- U.S. position would not boys home and that day may come lien clear force, as a step toward the ulti- Itshment of rang me the esthn the U.S. troops in Europe may be ;even mately hoped for nuclear arrangements within European federation. NATO ATO so long as the arrangement did not less than Belgium has in German At The treaty, as It stands, would prevent constitute an additional entity having the that time the Soviets will no longer on- any and all nonruclear signatories of power g use nuclear nations. Ins independent if sider our guarantees credible. Since here the treaty from ever developing even a theto independently surre n other nderedvits con- no automatic nuclear response b the purely defensive anti-ballistic-missile trol over all its own nuclear weapons to a United States to an attack on Europe system, if such a system should be de- NATO arrangement then a sharing arrange- and since at that time the French and veloped within the next 25 years, as some ment would be possible. This proposal, in British deterrents will probably stilA not distinguished scientists predict. This ob- light of the 1964 presidential campaign in b creditable, then the _ nvitationi for jection is especially pertinent b ecause of which the President re-iterated that U.S. S diet probes will be very inviting.; But the Concentration of Soviet missiles- would never surrender control of nuclear if the ownership of nuclear weapons by IRBM's--on European targets. weapons was a farce. Since the o. t rnalover was about to the alliance can be implemented, It' will The treaty pledges that the nuclear that ilU.S. t its entire not stockpile of nuclear Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 February 25, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 2045 weapons to a new organization and renounce its right of veto over them, Moscow could see light at the end of the tunnel in their efforts to prohibit any sharing arrangement. On September 24, 1985, the Soviet Union insisted again that any sharing arrangement within a military alliance was out of the question. Objective evidence indicates that the So- viet Union's patience was rewarded on Octo- ber 10, 1966, when President Johnson and Secretary Rusk met Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko at the White House. The New York Times reported on August 25, 1967: It has since become clear that In their talks that day President Johnson and Mr. Rusk gave Mr. Gromyko strong indication that the previous United States reservations, aimed at accommodating some nuclear shar- ing device in the North Atlantic Treaty Or- ganization had been withdrawn. After that time the Geneva Conference marked time waiting for the U.S. to finish "consultation" with its allies. Within less than a year, on August 24, 1967, the U.S. and the S.U. came to an agreement on all particulars except the inspection provision which was soon remedied by absurdly "agree- ing to agree" at some later date. In the ten year period from 1957 through 1967, the United States changed its position on three major points. It no longer suggested that the nuclear powers reduce their own stockpiles at the same time non-prolifera- tion measures were taken. It no longer in- sisted upon some arrangement for individ- ual self-defense. Most important, it dropped the requirement that nuclear sharing within NATO be protected. NON-PROLIFERATION AND EUROPE (By Sergio Fenoaltea) Today in Europe there Is anxiety among America's allies. The Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia has once again raised the specter of aggressive military power to the east, while American involvement in an Asian war gives little hope of an immediate resumption of American Interest in Euro- pean affairs, however much Europeans may desire such a revival. In part, too, European anxiety is due to American policy-the policy which has been enshrined in the non-prolif- eration treaty (NPT). What those committed to the establishment of European unity fear is that the aim they have pursued for years will no longer be practicable once the pres- ent treaty is in force. It is my opinion that the present draft which, unlike previous American drafts, pre- vents the existing nuclear powers from sur- rendering their nuclear role to an inter- national or multilateral body, would deal a hard, perhaps fatal, blow to European unification. First, because by sanctioning a special po- sition for Britain and France it would dis- courage them from merging into a united Europe lest, by so doing, they forfeit their privileged positions. Second, because the treaty would introduce an element of perpetual inequality of status among European states. Third (and this is the crucial point), be- cause in forbidding any government to trans- fer control over nuclear weapons not only to other governments but "to any recipient whatsoever," the treaty would make it im- possible for the existing European nuclear powers to surrender their nuclear role to an international or supranational European community. This means-and the gravity of it can hardly be overrated-that if Great Britain, or perhaps France one day, becomes so mature in her European conscience as to be willing to join in a European defense community and to surrender to it her nuclear role, she would be prevented from doing so by her NPT obligations. This also means giving the USSR a say in the process of European unification. Fourth, the effects of the provisions of the NPT would, in Europe, go well beyond the nuclear field. Owing to the impossibility of merging the defense structures of nuclear and non-nuclear states, the formation of any kind of European defense community would, In fact, become impossible. NPT, In its present form, condemns Euro- peans to nationalism, even against their will. This is, of course, a complete reversal of US policy which, beginning . with the Marshall Plan, was aimed at prodding the Europeans to forego nationalism in favor of unification. In other words, the problem that NPT in its present form creates for Europe is not whether a unified Europe can or cannot "have the bomb," but whether Europe can or cannot unite. One might ask why NPT presents a special problem for Europe. The answer is simple- all too simple. The impulse to go beyond nationalism and create multinational or supranational organi- zations absorbing the functions of the exist- ing national states is not confined to Europe: it can be seen in Latin America and Africa as well. It stems from the realization that everywhere-except in North America, Rus- sia and China-the dimensions of the nation- state are too small to cope with the problems of our century. To hinder this movement would be folly; it would mean going against the tide of history and perpetuating condi- tions of anarchy, national rivalries and insta- bility in the world. But in Africa and Latin America there is no national nuclear state, whereas there are two in Western Europe. Therefore, the NPT in its present form does not hinder the movement toward suprana- tional or multinational unification in Africa or Latin America, because it creates no per- manent disparity between national states within those areas; whereas it does create such a disparity between national states in Europe. The requirements of European unification could be met in a non-proliferation treaty by a formula, couched in general terms, permit- ting any nuclear member of an international or regional association to surrender its nu- clear role to the association. The former American draft of the treaty left open the possibility of such a transfer, as long as it would not have caused an increase in the total number of states and other organiza- tions having independent power to use nu- clear weapons. It is worth noting that such a formulation was perfectly adequate to pre- vent proliferation (i.e., any increase in the number of nuclear subjects), to prevent the emergence of new national nuclear states (including the emergence of a German na- tional nuclear armament), and to make sure that world areas where there is no nuclear power-Africa, Latin America, the Middle East-would remain that way. It has been said by Secretary of State Dean Rusk (in his statement before the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate) that the NPT, in Its present form, "would not bar succession by a new federated European state to the nuclear status of one of its former components"; in other words that it would not prevent a European Federation from having nuclear weapons. The underly- ing argument is that the treaty forbids any transfer of nuclear power, but if the existing European national states join in a federation this would not be a case of transfer but of succession, and the treaty is silent about suc- cession. The argument is a remarkable piece of legalistic virtuosity. Unfortunately, it lacks any political substance, and to make use of it in order to prove that the NPT does not hinder European unification would be an equally remarkable piece, I am sorry to say, of self-deception. Let us analyze it at some length. a) In the first place, a "federated European state" is a very remote and far-off even- tuality, so that the argument is largely academic. b) There is no provision in the treaty permitting any federation of states or fed- erated state to acquire the nuclear power of Its members. The argument is entirely based on Interpretation, and negative interpreta- tion at that, based not on what the treaty says but on what it does not say. There is as yet no certainty that all the signatories of the treaty, and particularly the USSR, will accept that interpretation and commit them- selves to It. c) The Secretary of State also said: "A new federated European state would have to con- trol all of its external security functions, In- cluding defense and all foreign policy mat- ters relating to external security, but would not have to be so centralized as to assume all governmental functions," As the treaty has no provision concerning the nuclear role of federated states, to define what the powers of a federated state should be seems beside the point. Actually, the key word in the in- terpretation under analysis is not the word "federation" but the word "succession." For the interpretation to become applicable, what is essential is not that the federated state shall be more or less centralized, but that the legal hypothesis of succession (as some- thing distinct from transfer) shall be ful- filled. This, in turn, requires nothing less than the disappearance of France or England as International entities. d) Even admitting, for the sake of discus- sion, that the NPT does not prevent a fed- erated Europe from acquiring on a "succes- sion" basis the nuclear role of France or Britain, the NPT in its present form would still hamper unification. In fact, unification is possible only, if rigidity and dogmatism about European institutions are avoided, only if we remain elastic and pragmatic about institutions. e) For Europe, the "federated state" will be the final and crowning stage of the proc- ess of unification; the integration of particu- lar sectors--coal and steel, external tariff, perhaps, one day, money and credit, defense, etc.-is the way that leads to that ultimate stage. The process cannot be reversed; to reverse it would be to stop it. Integration of European defense is a stage, and a very important stage, in the road toward federa- tion, not vice versa, To say that Europe as a "federation state" could have a nuclear role, at the same time making it impossible for Europeans to establish an integrated de- fense community, is like offering a man a prize if he reaches the tenth step of a ladder while putting barbed wire around the sixth step. f) All past schemes for European federa- tion failed, and proved to be only generous utopias, precisely because they assumed the disappearance of the existing national states. Europe started making progress toward uni- fication only when a new method was adopted, through the establishment of the European communities: not waiting for the national states to disappear as international entities but transferring more and more functions from the national states to multi- lateral, supranational institutions. But, as Secretary Rusk also said in his statement: "While not dealing with succession by ... a federated state, the treaty would bar transfer of nuclear weapons (including ownership) or control over them to any recipient, including a multilateral entity (italics ours)." This candid and unambiguous statement confirms tha the treaty, in its present form, forecloses the only road to unification of European de- fense that can be realistically foreseen. The US may very well decide to jettison European unification for the sake of non- proliferation. But let nobody pretend that a legal quibble (the "succession" theory) eli- minates the problem. No one should underrate the global respon- sibilities of the US and the desirability, in- deed necessity, for it to favor detente and keep dialogue with the USSR open. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 82046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE February 25, 1969 However, detente should not be pursued at the price of European unification. The weakening of Europe, and the loss of sense of direction which would result from the shattering of hopes of unification, would not contribute to a lastingtente; indeed, they would Introduce in the world situation an additional element of instability. It is a feature of the world in which we live that the US and the USSR face each other both in Europe and in Southe'=st Asia; that all the historical and sociologicri' factors (nationhood, to begin with) which iolnmu- nism is able to mobilize to its advantage in Southeast Asia militate against the USSR in Europe; that the USSR to the extent to which Asian Communist movements are an- swerable to Moscow and not to Pelting-can at any time curb Communist expansion in Asia if by doing so she gan reap advantages in the areas more vital to it; that, conversely, the position of any Weste n power in South- east Asia is so fraught with difficulties that the temptation of taking advantage of any service that the USSR might wish to offer to extricate it from those difficulties cannot fall to be strong. yielding Should anyone some d&y consider 'yielding to the temptation of buying some amount of Soviet goodwill In Asia with concessions in Europe, he should be reni,iixlded that ar_y such policy would lead to disaster both in RLrope and Asia, because concessions to the Soviets in Europe are final and,_Irretrievable once made, while Soviet "concessions" in Asia are written on water. Recent history teaches a telling lesson, which is very much' to the point. In 1954 the French Prime Minister- designate, M. Mendes-France, told the French National Assembly: "I ask you only a condi- tional vote of confidence. If within one month I am not able to kale back' too you with an acceptable truce In Indochina, I will resign." He went to Geneva, where the',fi viets helped him to obtain a tru=--sa in Ind'oahina, perhaps on better terms than those war- ranted by the then existing military s tua- tion. In doing this, the Soviets knew that they were saving the political life of M. Mendes-France. They also knew-whether there was, as many suspect, an explicit deal is irrelevant-that by saving the political life of M. Mendes-France as Prince Minister they were killing EDC. EDC remained dead. As for Indochina, we all know how long the truce lasted. 1 The impact on European morale of the TPT, if adopted in its present form, would be very severe. The realization that the road to unification s blocked-even worse, the realization that the unification of Europe has ceased to be one of the goals of American policy-is bound to have lasting effects. Nobody in France or Bri Lain believes European unity to be around the corns . But unity is a goal, it provides a beacon, i gives a sense of purpose. In Germany and Italy, European unification is one of the tw Inor- nerstones on which the foreign poll y. of both countries has been based for the %A 20 years; Atlantic partnership, which is ebn- tingent on European unification, is the Other. It would be difficult to exalt;...*,erate the hu- portance that those two goals have hod in Italy as a rallying point of her democratic forces, and the risk attached to theiij dis- appearance. I In Germany, there is the possibility taiat the NPT might bring the Federal Re hltc to the same fate as the Weimar Republic. It is essentialfor the political stabillt3, in- deed for the spiritual stability, of the Federal Republic to keep open, as an alternati e to German reunification, the road toward an effective integration of Western Europe.! HOW TO RUN A RAILROAD !Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. Pi esident, on February 14, the Evening News of Newark, N.J., published an edt- tonal, "How to Run a Railroad." The editorial salutes the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad for maintaining service during a severe snowstorm that crippled the New Jersey metropolitan area. Getting any place that day was ex- tremely difficult, and for the men of the Erie-Lackawanna to get to their jobs, is indicative of a -tremendous devotion to duty. As also is pointed out, maintaining service was equally a tribute to the man- agement of the line. I know from--personal contacts that commuters on -he line were not only deeply apprec: a,tive, but also almost amazed that the trains were running that day. The editorial also emphasizes a point I long have stressed-that mass trans- portation is the lifeline of modern urban-suburban society. The urban mass transit legislation which I have intro- duced, not only would insure that the railroads always will be running, but would provide integrated networks of transportation. I believe the Evening News editorial is an appropriate tribute to the employees and management of the Erie-Lacka- wanna Railroad. I ask unanimous consent that it be re- printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: How To Run A RAU.B_!,,?5D A sampling of letters from grateful riders printed in adjoining columns- reflects the metropolitan community's appreciation for the superb performance of the Erie-Lacka- wanna Railroad during the weekend snow- storm that crippled other forms of transpor- tation and most other commuter lines. The Long Island Rail Road collapsed un- der a blanket of white. For all its new equip- ment, PATH was knocked out from Jersey City to Newark for 24 hours. The Penn Cen- tral managed to run about half of its trains, and these from three to four hours late. Though jammed with riders who normally drive, the E-L burrowed through with 50- year-old rolling stock, canceling relatively few trains and holding fairly close to sched- ule. How does this line consistently cope with adversity when others falter or fall com- -pletely? The main iactor appears to be a re- markable devotion to service shared by su- pervisory personnel, engineers, trainmen and yard crews. Last Sunday, well before the storm. reached its peak, E-L train crews re- ported hours before they were due to keep the tracks open and idle cars from getting snowbound. Management clearly deserves credit for maintaining this spirit in the face of dis- crimination in the allotment of funds under the state subsidy and transportation bond issue. While other railroads could emulate the Erie-Lackawanna to advantage, there is a larger lesson to be learned from civilization's latest losing bout with the elements. That is the absolute need for improved rapid transit in urbanized areas. Before many more millions are spent on roads and highways that are choked with traffic as rapidly as they're built, New Jersey's transportation officials should concntrate on producing an integrated transit network us- ing existing facilities and modernizing them as quickly as possible. A TRIBUTE TO MICHAEL MUNKACSY Mr. GOODELL. MW. President, today is an occasion of great import to the world of the arts and to the heroic Hungarian people, known throughout the world for their democratic spirit. For this week is the 125th anniversary of the birth of Michael Munkacsy, the cele- brated Hungarian artist and patriot. Michael vlunkcsy was one of the most popular painters of the 19th cen- tury. He had a brilliant career and at the age of 26 was awarded the Gold Medal of the Paris Salon. For a dozen years or so, his name was a byword in European art circles and it was generally assumed that he would be remembered among the greatest of all time. Among the talented Hungarians in Europe dur- ing his lifetime, he was one of the best known, second only to the brilliant com- poser and musician, Ferenc Liszt. Munkacsy was a clear-cut tradition- alist, and a brilliant one. His tonal treat- ment, his striving for plasticity and real- ity, and his search for textures convey- ing exactness of reproduction to the fullest possible extent, rendered him the idol of all who worshipped the styles of the past. His triumph was interrupted by the development of the impressionist school, to which both he and his public were opposed. When the impressionists became the major force in the art world, Munkacsy was for a time obscured. A reevaluation of his work took place in the 1920's, however, and he once again was hailed as a master. From that day forward, he has been known as the greatest of Hungarian painters. Before Munkacsy, there had been at- tempts, founded on romanticism, to create a living Hungarian art, national in spirit. Munkacsy carried these at- tempts much further, by means of his dramatically powerful romantic realism, which became the dominant form of Hungarian painting in the 19th century. His style featured strong character por- trayal and sought to emphasize dramat- ic moments in the life of those con- cerned. The best works of Munkacsy would seem to emanate from a deep, re- sponsive feeling for humanity. Here was no innovator, perhaps. But here was cer- tainly an artist imbued with intense sympathy, critical judgment, social consciousness, and, not least, the ability to express the characteristics of a peo- ple. He was one of those who, in the words of the Hungarian patriot, Istvan Szecheny, "gave a nation to the world." In his own country and in the eyes of Hungarians in every land, Munkacsy stands today as something in the nature of a legendary hero. He was the first truly great artist to tell the story of Hungarian life to a world which there- tofore was virtually oblivious to it. He was a true Hungarian nationalist, and the force of his work helped strengthen the determination of his people to strive for freedom, against all odds and under any condition whatsoever. THE FUTURE OF THE POVERTY PROGRAM Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the new administration sent a message to Con- gress on the future-of the poverty pro- gram on Wednesday of last week. The message had been eagerly awaited by Congress and by the many thousands of people involved in the administration of Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 196 0PPM APOM912W -EHkQMPOMBD0394RGObCO0140006-4 E1329 February 24, Our national leaders are well aware of this national challenge is maritime program. confident that Governor Chaffee brings to the changing pattern of naval balance. The mer- Certainly, an understanding of the oceans is Navy and the Marine Corps the civilian lead- chant fleet was considered in a recent re- the fundamental building block for the na- ership and the service championship dis-to fos port of the House Armed Services Committee tional naval leadersip that ist r the needed c1 ura making recent years in the defense de- chaired by Mendel Rievrs, D-S.C. nitude of the program now . on process, The report, prepared by a 22-man special Though the educational aspects are para- In welcoming the new Secretary aboard, for the guidan a of our government tion the substance o our Declaration of Ob- Count 1, dealt with the "Changing Strategic doctrine the Naval Balance, U.S.S.R. vs. U.S.A." is imperative in seeking seabased strategic jectives and Resolutions. With broad public support, this projected maritime program The Soviet Merchant Marine, ro t "sufficiency." provides potential for the President to build the committea e study, , has risen from ng m 21st t NAVY SPARKS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS the modern mobile posture required to meet rank in 1950 to fifth in 1968. Traditionally, the Navy has provided the his worldwide responsibilities. "The free world countries grew strong and oceanic motivation, the initiative and Intel- Welcome aboard, Mr. Secretary! We look to stayed free through control of the seas, in- lectual incentives needed by the Nation. Un- you for positive leadership and a strong civil- eluding leadership in global conference," the derstandably, both the Commander-in-Chief you championship of the Service. In turn, report points out. "The Soviet Union, how- and the Congress have looked to the naval we pledge the fullest measure of our purposes ever, is being allowed to take the position of service and its civilian head for professional to assist you in the challenging responsibil- maritime supremacy that hitherto has be- guidance and the scientific spark to foster it'ies you have assumed on behalf of this longed to the seavoyaging free nations of the national maritime progress. great maritime nation. West." Interestingly, it was at Rhode Island Uni- CHARLES F. DucHEIN, The conclusion of the study was that a varsity, under Governor Chefee's steward- National President, Navy League major build-up of U.S. sea power is called ship, that the Sea Grant College program of the United States. for, both military and merchant fleet.'The was launched by Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus, as- Navy League has also adopted that position. sisted by Dean Knauss. With the university According to the naval balance report, "If sparking an educational and oceanic re- the United States proceeds at full speed to search program of revolutionary implication, THREAT TO NON- augment its naval forces, the Soviet Union Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island SENTINEL POSES TH THR PARTY will not be able to wrest the trident from spearheaded the Sea Grant College legisla- America's grasp." tion through Congress to create a counter- The Navy League has proposed a five-point part to the rewarding Land Grant College HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN program to restore our merchant fleet to a' program of NEW YORK preeminent position: Although in its infancy, the Sea Grant The United States must form a maritime program has created an appreciable surge in IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES petits pmaritim incentive e on gain a a com- ocean study. Unprecedented Interest in Monday, February 24, 1969 our government ocean to ocean related disciplines and studies has the world. The world. Thf pof position for e failure our most critical t to been stimulated on college campuses Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, the basic in- element i basic policy is the most nthe throughout the country. Already the re- consistency of the proposed Sentinel moment in cleaning up "the mess in the spouse of American scientists, scholars and anti-ballistic missile system was pointed nation arine." students has been electrifying. But the in- out in a February 24 editorial which merchant Our namust orient its world, national just sthe centives provided by enlightened leadership Kremlin litha oceans of the world, just as the for the entire maritime program require re- appeared in the New York Times. As that Kremln has done in recent years. inforcement. Oceanic purpose must flow editorial points out, the Nuclear Non- America must u after lthe east 100 from national maritime policy. The reori- Proliferation Treaty, which hopefully a year or tket next building at least 100 ships entation of the American endeavor to the represents a first tentative step toward be fostered, in our basic pursuit of the full range of oceanic reducing the threat of nuclear war, could a year isc education nt10 must years. Oceanic and world trade, from a truly tom- be Seriously undermined if the admin- ground tog give our youth they good a receivee petitive, modern structure, will require pub- istratiOn proceeds with plans to deploy rouin in the seas as now receive understanding as well as intellectual de- lege the land environment. A Sea Sea Grant Cole velopment in depth. Consequently, at the in- a new antiballistic missile system. Non- scienttists, scholars aand s udentsin the search tigation of the Chief of Naval Operations, nuclear powers, which have approved the for oceanic solutions to the problems Of the League has broadly encouraged this treaty, might question whether the ocean-oriented intellectual endeavor. United States indeed has a "good faith" state. The Naval War College at Newport, R. I.; interest in nuclear disarmament and A Maritime Manhattan mojtet musg technological be the nation's center of intellectual leadership possibly reassess their own decision not cre adavannc c es. to stimulate maritime technolog for the study and development of new con- to develop nuclear arms. This, in turn, ad The critical nature of the decline A oepts of naval and maritime power, Is ideally could only result in an increase in the scan seapower demands that the U.S. main- suited to foster this understanding. At its insecurity which is posed by existent nu- tain and increase its supremacy on the global strategy seminar each year, leaders clear stockpiles. Instead of proceeding oceans by building a larger and more modern in all walks of life glean an insight into with on Sentinel system, the proceeding fleet. The freedom of the United States and oceanic strategy and the import of the oceans withOri should enter ]m, egadmin its allies in anchored in control of the oceans. relative to the national welfare. Highlighted trati That is why we need a rebirth of the U.S. at each seminar are the options afforded by with the Soviet Union to limit-not en- Merchant Marine. the oceans toward solving the pressing prob- large-reliance upon offensive and de- _ lams of state. , fensive missile systems. The editorial [From the Navy Magazine, February 1969] SERVICE CHAMPION follows: THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE: NAVAL LEADERSHIP As civilian spokesman for the naval serv- THE SENTINEL AND THE TREATY AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC DESTINY ices, the Secretary of the Navy endeavors to In his questioning of Secretary of State "There is a tide In the affairs of men, Interject the maritime view convincingly into Rogers on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which taken at the flood, leads on to for- the process of our government. With the,pro- Senator Albert Gore has exposed a funda- tune-" (Shakespeare). fessional support of the Chief of Naval Oper- mental inconsistency in the Administration's Special significance attends the selection ations and the Commandant of the Marine apparent resolve to push ahead with some of the Governor of the maritime?;ptate of Corps, the Secretary of the Navy is respected sort of Sentinel antiballistic missile system- Rhode Island to the civilian leadership of the as the most knowledgeable civilian leader on a resolve made more explicit last week by naval establishment. A brilliant oceanic maritime matters within the government. Secretary of Defense Laird. Mr. Gore noted mosaic is unfolding as John H. Chafer, a Unfortunately with the passage of the Na- that under Article VI of the treaty the nu- Marine, ascends the gangway, steps aboard tional Security Act of 1947, the Secretary of clear powers undertake "to pursue negotia- and breaks his personal flag. The exciting the Navy was removed from the President's tions in good faith on effective measures American renaissance developing at sea Cabinet. Since the Cabinet now is deprived relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race augers well for the future security and eco- of a spokesman capable of the direct inter- at an early date and to nuclear disarma- nomic prosperity of the nation. Maritime op- jection of the maritime viewpoint into its ment." portunities are at an historic high. deliberations, the crucially significant role The Sentinel program provides a critical Vision, enlightenment and determination of the civilian head of the naval services is test of how seriously the United States views are called for to meet the mounting menace accentuated. its obligations under that article. If there of burgeoning Soviet maritime strength. Ad- The pledges of the President to provide a is a "good faith" interest in nuclear disarma- mittedly, regaining a preeminent American Navy "second to none" and to revitalize the ment, then the logical step would be to post- oceanic posture, to a marked degree, will de- Merchant Marine, as a "first priority eco- pone deployment of the Sentinel system pend on the leadership provided. But the key nomic task", with emphasis on resolute while the United States enters into negotia- to capitalize upon this current trend of oceanic research, are given marked credibility lions with the Soviet Union to limit often- events is conviction. The crux of meeting by his selection of the new Secretary. We are save and defensive strategic missiles. If, in. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 E 1330 Approved 1 8/ RDP71 B00364R000300140006-4 stead, the Administration decides to proceed with Sentinel deployment on the distorted logic that accelerating the atomic arms race somehow leads to nuclear disarmament, then It will be apparent that the United States regards Article VI as little more than a pious statement imposing no obligations upon the nuclear powers. Something far more important is at stake, however, than just this country's interpre- tation of Article VI. At issue is the whole future of the treaty, a matter that is likely to come up in President Nixon's European discussions this week. So far as the non-nuclear states are con- cerned, the article was one of the more im- portant concessions made by the ttvo major nuclear powers in drafting the rtaty. If the United States and the Soviet U ihn now indicate that they do not feel bound in any way by the article, then some of he more important non-nuclear states, such as Japan, Israel and India, can ask with good reason why they should take the treaty now of com- plete nuclear abstinence. By proceeding with the Sentinel system, therefore, the United States can jeopardize the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Even if the military utility of the system were much less dubious than it is, this would be a bad risk to run. In the long run, the spread of nuclear weapons undoubtedly prese is a far greater danger than the still no existent nuclear missiles in Communist Chi a or the unproved usefulness of Sentinel as a (.rgain- ing counter in arms talks with Moscow. --fir PRINTING OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTRACTS It shall be lawful for the Public 1=Tinter to print and deliver upon the orde of any Senator, Representative, or Delegate, !extracts from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, the person ordering the same paying the cost] thereof '("U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 185, p. 1942) . -Extensions of Remarks February 24, 1969 GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE Additional copies of Government publica- tions are offered for sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, at cost thereof as determined by the Public Printer plus 50 percent: Provided, That a dis- count of not to exceed 25 percent may be al- lowed to authorised bookdealers and quantity purchasers, but such printing shall not inter- fere with the prompt execution of work for the Government. The Superintendent of Documents shall prescribe the terms and conditions under which he may authorize the resale of Government publications by bookdealers, and he may designate any Gov- ernment officer his agent for the sale of Gov- ernment publications under such regulations as shall be agreed upon by the Superintend- ent of Documents and the head of the re- spective department or establishment of the Government (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 72a, Supp. 2). RECORD OFFICE AT THE CAPITOL An office for The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, with Mr. Raymond F. Noyes in charge, is lo- cated In room H--112, House wing, where or- ders will be received for subscriptions to the RECORD at $1.50 per month or for single copies at 1 cent for eight pages (minimum charge of 3 cents). Also, orders from Mem- bers of Congress to purchase -reprints from the RECORD should be processed through this office. CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTORY The Public Printer, under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, may print for sale, at a price sufficient to reimburse the expenses of such printing, the current Con- gressional Directory. No sale shall be made on credit (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 150, -p. 1939). LAWS RELATIVE TO THE PRINTING OF DOCUMENTS Either House may order the printing of a document not already provided for by law, but only when the same shall be accompa- nied by an estimate from the Public Printer as to the-probable cost thereof. Any execu- tive department, bureau, board or independ- ent office of the Government submitting re- ports or documents in response to inquiries from Congress shall submit therewith an estimate of the probable cost of printing the usual number. Nothing in this section re- lating to estimates shall apply to reports or documents not exceeding 50 pages (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 140, p. 1938). Resolutions for printing extra copies, when presented to either House, shall be referred immediately to the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representa- tives or the Committee on Rules and Admin- istration of the Senate, who, in making their report, shall give the probable cost of the proposed printing upon the estimate of the Public Printer, and no extra copies shall be printed before such committee has reported (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 133, p. 1937). CHANGE OF RESIDENCE Senators, Representatives, and Delegates who have changed their residences will please give information thereof to the Government Printing Office, that their addresses may be correctly given in the RECORD. 1OPYRIGHT NOTICES When privately copyrighted material is reprinted An a Government publication, notice of copyright is essential in order that the public riot be misled, Whenever CONGRESSIONAL RECORD reprints are planned to include copyrighted material, the CoNGRrssIONA RECORD Clerk should be so advised and permission should be obtained from the copyright holder. Approved For ~,elease 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 NEW YORK TIMES 0 DATE ' Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RD 0300140006-4 far the reiationsnlp bef~veer, 11 t i'1 fl ;hai: the a Tense partment thcommittee and the Secre? Testifies Pact Would O6lie V, A o Enter Negotta` ions with Soviet on Ar"A_ y JOHN W. FINNED WASHINGTON, Feb. I$-The eE .extracted a conie-A Rogers the spread of` talks with t " ,avored proceeding with de- taryof State also shci'+avett signs fo ment oaf tl Sentine _ more effective than the system proposed by the Johnson Ad- tialIy more significant W_ The The committee, whic _ ed to be thrown on the deve by Mr. Rusk's artful matic ambiguities "and ua- The Deputy Defense Secre- ciousness, showed new s joined Mr. Laird at the news a secretary or state whit. tAas.. 111 ffi' conference, said that In its cur `the brief, declarative "& rent review the Defense Deplrt tenses of a lawyer and ,who is obviously still feeling l yi y stdally different alternatives to the proposed Sentinel system; ous deployment options. 0 some of the Sentinel b ,.When Mr. Laird testifies Thursday before the Fo n Relations Committee, he will e confronted with the same ques- tion that confronted Mr. Rq$pl ' Why should the United States roceed with a :missile defense p under the "nuclear weapons tlcle VI of the treaty, thi iTt-{ treaty. In this developirt ,tit- ed States would under e a ate, Mr. Rogers's conc iron -Cafffmitment to enter into arms today will provide the commit- talks with the Soviet Won to ft -"p with an areuin? point tO be ctif5 the deployment oF efen- used against Mr. Laird. dive" as well as offensivetrate- [r. Rogers Ief Using the treaty as plat. g1ciinissiles. Inistration's t! on farm. the committee ist n'bid Under Article VI, "Each of A could start deploying a. baIlis- against deployment of the S,en- tastes to pursue negotiations in missile defense system b tinel system. Under cotiaidesa- _gLood faith on effective meas- __ ,.F: 'iron by the committee is a plan ures relating to cessation of _ ---- h t e ors. W' ?larch-presumably before tie ly date and to nuclear dis- iG Contention by Laird j el Administration reaches a deci arggment, and on a treaty on i uxi..n nn tl,o c ntincl ecfrtar5t_ $`6rH?'_+ral and comnlatP riicarma- " on the foreign policy linplica. ment unaer strict and effective tire of questioning f Lions of deploying a missile de? international control." deployment of the eiiffhel a certain mutuality xeuu dO ~. u 'Y'?? "y u,v cc the ' gued that the treaty would not as one way to build Li h se ~*VtT1 that of Defense aec-1 it missile defense system. i tary Melvin R. Laird, who has In his first public appearanc( been contending that deploy- since becoming Secretary o ment of the Sentinel system State a month ago, Mr. Roger; would strengthen the United testified for three and three quarter hours in support of th( States' bargaining hand in ne- treaty. gotiations with the Russians. His first public confrontatiol While Mr. Rogers was testify- with the committee in it: ling, Mr. Laird wa " able, in decided contrast to in( erende th t d vel e Continued on Pam 3, t encounters between Secretary 0 Dean Rusk and the com PAGE I The committee hrcia.ahed the subject gently at first. SienAtor J, W. Fulbright, Demol fq of Arkansas, the committer chair- man, asked in almot tL. 1sual manner 'whether the ca . war not "a little inconsistency''_: i =- Ing ratification of the ire y ,while the United Stat fi i ce; erated the arms race rby seeding to deploy a misJile Tense system. There is no inconsistency, Mr. Rogers countered, because "realism requires that there be a certain mutuality and that is what we are hoping for." The clear implication of his answer was that in IIegotiation the Soviet Union, wlli is de- ploying a missile defer sys- tern around Moscow, "Would have little incentiveto hi its system if the Unilid _ rites unilaterally refrained de- 'pling one. he' ; questioning to *'sharp- er and more prolclhl with Senator Gore. His'"'ttial argument was that under Arti- cle VI the United States would be committed to enter into arms control negoti4,tiol},~?witl}, the Soviet Union diaipg with ..defensive as well at fenalve_ weapons, Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 tees new assertiveness wsa"ie. iatiner in which it sucI- ly linked the nuclear wris treaty to the issue of whether the United States should 5el'Io1 A,misslle defense system... Seeks to Avoid Line tlien* y another, Mr 'R gersl i'Fec-ti n. But under pe Iste t west oning, particular&. S 1582 Approved For ReI j A(; I Acy RPg7W00 RQ0 300140006-4 portant, in the case of a resgrvoir, surround- - I U.8. SENAT -.. _ v EaxmEa 1 VICES ., velOPment of the site if delayed unt_il_ll . future Washington, .C, February 17,.1 69. future date. n..--.--It, With the limited number Director, Central Director, Centrall intelligence good rvolr ntelligence Agency, sites I do not believe we can afford re- Washin ton DC g , . .. empt good sites with partial development DEAR MR. HELMS: Since the Nuclear Nor..- der the guise of economic efficienc Wi " ' of # y .eratlon Treaty vyill soon be under Qd's- current projections of population growth and cussion "the 6enata,.,it Would assist the water consumption w will ha diffi ' e ve culty ex Senate s Ctitti -onsuonal responsibilities to plaining to the next generation our monu- know the full history of the background of ment to planning insufficiency as evidenced the negotiations which produced the text. by the number of undersized projects re- I would appreciate it if you could check suiting from the use of a high imputed in- the files of your agency and supply me with terest rate in project analysis. It will mean information on the composition of internal sizing projects to present rather than future working groups and Inter-agency committees needs. I cannot help but feel that even with in which your agency participated on Non- the lower interest rates used in the past, a Proliferation Treaty questions. I am inter- review of completed projects will show that ested in the process of negotiating, and in in the vast majority of cases the future bene- the individual participants, both in the pre- Ste have been greatly understated. 1iminaries in Washington, and in the work Many years ago I heard an old Chinese of the International conference teams abroad. proverb which is applicable to my discussion I would particularly like to have this infor- today. It went something like this: mation with regard to the draft treaty of "If you are planning for tomorrow, gather August 24, 1967; the draft treaty of January twigs. 18, 1968; the joint draft treaty of March 11, "If you are planning for next year, plant 1968; and the final draft of May 31, 1988. rice. In addition, I would like to know which "If you are planning for 100 years, plant departments of your agency and individuals trees." who are presently assigned to responsibilities I hope that our planners and. you together in regard to this treaty. with the Corps of Engineers and Congress Because the treaty will reach the Senate are going to start planting trees. Instead of In a matter of days, I would appreciate it if gathering twigs, you could expedit th Its NONPROLIFERATION TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it will not be long before the Senate opens debate on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. As we all know, this treaty was drafted and negotiated by the previous administration. In my view, it would be useful for the new Senators and new members of the administration to famil- iarize themselves with the processes of negotiation and the manner in which our Government agencies participated. Since we now are beginning a new administration, we have a unique oppor- tunity to study the technique of the pre- vious one. _ Accordingly, I have today written to the heads of the agencies which have the statutory responsibility for being involved in such negotiations on the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I am asking them to tell me how the previous administration went about this work and who were the experts assigned to this problem. This information will provide useful insights into the workings of our democratic form of government. When the Senate is asked to give its advice and consent to a matter as im- portant as an international treaty, it should inquire into all phases of the E February 17, 1969 information e provision of this . With kind personal regards. Sincerely, STROM THURMOND. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D.C., February 17, 1969. Hon. HENRY A. KISSINGER, National Security Advisor, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KISSINGER: Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will soon be under discussion in the Senate, it would assist the Senate's Constitutional responsibilities to know the full history of the background of the negotiations which produced the text. I would appreciate it if you could check the files of your agency and supply me with Information on the composition of internal working groups and inter-agency committees in which your agency participated on Non- Proliferation Treaty questions. I am Inter- ested in the process of negotiating, and In the Individual participants, both in the pre- liminaries in Washington, and in the work of the International conference teams abroad. I would particularly like to have this infor- mation with regard to the draft treaty of August 24, 1967; the draft treaty of January 18, 1968; the joint draft treaty of March 11, 1968; and the final draft of May 31, 1968. In addition, I would like to know which departments of your agency and Individuals who are presently assigned to responsibilities in regard to this treaty. Because the treaty will reach the Senate In a matter of days, I would appreciate it if you could expedite the provision of this information. With kind personal regards. Sincerely, STRow THURMOND. more leisurely pace, but the present tim- ing of its disposition appears to prevent that care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the text of the letters which I am today sending to five agency heads be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE on ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D.C., February 17, 1969. Hon. GERARD C. SMITH, Director, U.S. Arms Control & Disarma- ment Agency, Department of State,, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SMITH: Since the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty will soon be under dis- cussion in the Senate, It would assist the Senate's Constitutional responsibilties to know the full history of the background of the negotiations which produced the text. I would appreciate it if you could check the files of your agency and supply me with information on the composition of Internal working groups and Inter-agency committees in which your agency participated on Non- Proliferation Treaty questions. I am inter- ested in the process of negotiating and in the individual participants, both in the pre- liminaries In Washington, and in the 'work of the international conference teams abroad . I would particularly like to have this infor- mation with regard to the draft treaty of August 24, 1957; the draft treaty of January 18, 1968; the joint draft treaty of March 11, 1968; and the final draft of May 31, 1968. In addition, i would like to know which departments of your agency and Individuals who are presently assigned to responsibilities in regard to this treaty. Because the treaty will reach the Senate In a matter of days, I would appreciate it If you could expedite the provision of this In- formation. With kind personal regards. Sincerely, STROM THURMOND. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D.C., February 17, 1969. Hon. WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Secretary of State, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will soon be under discussion In the Senate, it would assist the Senate's Constitutional responsibilties to know the full history of the background of the negotiations which produced the text. I would appreciate it if you could check the files of your agency and supply me with in- formation on the composition of Internal working groups and inter-agency committees In which your agency participated on Non- Proliferation Treaty questions. I am Inter- ested in the process of negotiating, and in the individual participants, both in the pre- liminaries in Washington, and In the work of the International conference teams abroad. I woud particularly like to have this information with regard to the draft treaty of August 24, 1967; the draft treaty of Janu- ary 18, 1968; the joint draft treaty of March 11, 1968; and the final draft of May 31, 1968. In addition, I would like to know which departments of your agency and individuals who are presently assigned to responsibilities In regard to this treaty. Because the treaty will reach the Senate in a matter of days, I would appreciate it if you could expedite the provision of this information. With kind personal regards. Sincerely, STROM THURMOND. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, D.C., February 17, 1969. Hon. MELVIN R. LAIRD, Secretary of Defense, Washintgon, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will soon be under discussion In the Senate, it would assist the Senate's Constitutional responsibilities to know the full history of the background of the negotiations which produced the text. I would appreciate it if you could check the files of your agency and supply me with information on the composition of Internal working groups and inter-agency committees In which your agency patricipated on Non- Proliferation Treaty questions. I am inter- ested in the process -of negotiating, and in the individual participants, both in the pre- liminaries in Washington, and in the work of the international conference teams abroad. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000300140006-4 S 1581 Febri.1ary 17, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Recent news dispatches state that the rate, in m most cases thedaal~Enativemptioii le is projecctt benefitade possible by the primary eservoir a_ flood of January 1969, is southern California's purpose worst ut@flci to since the rains March and 1938, floods with a88nd deaths that such r project always A major gcost ra ceof 1 to 1. This problem in our inner cities is the creation of persons evacuated from their homes. Sev9,000 has eral a veral atsumption has many basic omissions or a chateiilwa open space industry is abughant - counties reas" b have been declared "major disaster 14hortcornings. use by the President. . When the residents ? -With the the uof a higher interest rate the cost transportation, economical power, flood- a return to their homes there is the, cleanup benefits increase and other alternatives could free locations, and abundant water supply job-the shoveling of silt from the rugs and appear to have an advantage over the single- and recreational opportunities. These project floors of their homes; the drying out of over- purpose water supply res(rvoir. For exam- benefits will combine with natural resources, stuffed furniture and walls which, at best, ple, development of a series of wells, Which both human and material, to stem the tide will smell musty for a long time- .The con- could be installed in stages according to de- of rural migration to the congested cities tamination of water supplies frequently re- mend schedules, might well appear to have which has so greatly increased our welfare quires the inoculation of entire communi_ an economic advantage over the reservoir problems. ties. This is especially upsetting to small with a high initial capital investment be- This is but one example to suggest that children still suffering. from the shock of cause of the option available to defer ex- project planners should show how water re- the flood disaster. No monetary value has I penditures. While this solution may be satis- source projects help meet our social goals- ever been placed on the elimination of the 'factory for a small community, ever increas- including beautification, reduction of po1- human~suifering attendant upon flooding. Ing areas of the country are finding that lution problems, and better distribution of A few years ago recreation benefits were extensive withdrawals o:f ground waters people. considered intangible and not subject to which have accumulated over thousands of We will do our part in Congress, but there monetary evaluation, but the Bureau of Out- years are lowering the vrater table which is a real service that organizations such as door Recreation has developed an empirical necessitates continual deepening of the wells the Mississippi Valley Association can and formula, for assigning a dollar value to the resulting in final exhaustion of the supply. must perform. I have in mind an intensified various) types of recreation. We are convinced Conversely, the development of a multiple- public information program. that if we can determine the value or a day's Purpose reservoir stores destructive flood The Water Resources Council's recent Na- recreation, it is feasible and practlcal to de- waters for subsequent release for the gehera- tional Water Assessment contains a wealth velop a similar empirical formula for assign- Lion of power, low-flow augmentation for of information on our water needs for the ing a monetary value to the prevention off many purposes, Including enhancement of year 2020. But, unless the grass roots of the human suffering resulting from flooding. fisheries and dilution of xollution and navi- America awaken to the challenge of fulfilling gallon, as well as specific reservation and those water needs, we may forever lose the BANK EROSION withdrawals for water supply. use of some of the few good reservoir sites In computing benefits from erosion controls The hearings before the Subcommittee on remaining. measures, the Corps considers only the bens- Economy in Government of the Joint Eco- As the first step in such an educational fits at the site and completely neglects the nomic Committee disclosed that the interest program, I visualize the dramatic relating value of the land lost, the adV Ise down- ,rates applied by agencies in discounting their of each timely news event on water resource streams effects and cost of subsequent re-] proposed investment alternatives range from development. For instance, when a flood con- moval,l say, from a navigational channel, oil a minimum of 0% to a maximum of 20%. trot project has protected an area or reduced the effect the accumulation of silt within a gowever, what was not made clear in those damage from heavy rains-tell it like it is, reservoir has on reducing the -useful life of hearings was that except in the field of in the local papers, radio, or television. Or, if a reservoir. The Federal Water Pollution Con- Water and related land resource develop- an authorized project, even a study under trol Administration has cited siltation as one ment, the studies were cost effectiveness way, would have alleviated flood damage- of the major sources of pollution of our studies used merely as a guide to determine tell it like it is. In periods of drouth-tell streams. The contribution that bank erosion ;Which of several alternatives should be se- what relief has been received from an exist- control plays in achieving our national ob- lected to accomplish a desired objective. lug project, or outline the relief to be ex- jective of clean waters should befully evalu' Only in the field of water resource develop- pected from a potential project. ated. In many cases where the alternative to ments are benefit-to-cost analyses m`bde to At times in recent years, when low flows bank protection is a levee set W. we fine determine if the objective is to be met. In the Ohio River aggravated pollution prob- that continual erosion necessitates subse The determination to land on the moon lems, one-half of that flow came from re- quent set backs. Although a. singe levee set and many other costly programs were not leases of stored water in upstream reservoirs! back may appear to be the cheapest alter based on a benefit-to-cost analysis. The air Were such facts to be fully reported when native, the costs of repeated set backs usu- and water pollution control programs were the related event is news, public works proj- ally greatly exceed the costs of the more based on national objectives rather than on ects would soon lose the stigma of Pork permanent solution afforded by the erosioii a benefit-to-cost analysis. Within these pro- Barrel! control measures. grams standards were set without regard to Similarly, the benefits from recreation are HYDROELECTRIC the status of the technology required to worth a good story on the big days-say, the achieve them or the costs involved. Fourth of July and Labor Day. And, a good We:are air and now embalut on an a- ant, effort I do not depreciate the value of sound eco- story is more than the mention of attendance on air and water polluti on the act that, yet n~ 2iomics in the decision-making process, but and special events -it is the story of the co doen not poll pollit given ute to the either fact the air or or the to be effective It must be consistent with business activity created by the use of the power r does aii our national goals, and not be used to dis- facility. water!. J criminate against a particular objective. I Annual stories of the payroll and other With the new air quality stancoun ds being; submit that if at the tine of the Louisiana construction activities resulting from low- cost D d low any sulphur sections of r instance, swt.]; e Purchase, the President's advisors had in- cost barge transportation tie In well with in as losuo to coal, for an v sisted on an economic evaluation of the pur- year-end financial summaries. crease from two to three dollars a ton o r: Working together, we can and must meet the cost of the present fuel being used. Th s chase, with the future benefits reduced to b their present worth at ^.hat time, using the the water resource needs of this country in represents a very substantial increase in o - erating costs. In addition, there are in opportunity cost of money as the discount an orderly manner, rather than await the Isis and then cations that the low sulphur coals a e rate, the purchase would never have been cr embark on a costly crash injurious to the boilers thus necessitating made. I am equally certain that there is no program. more economist in the country today that would In the immediate future, you should pre- frequent repairs s and earlier tr replace- au suggest that it was a bad investment. pare well documented testimony to present These factors should be taken in a gg at regional hearings of the Water Resources account in the economic evaluation of - One very basic limitation of, the benefit- Council so that the planners will have ade- posed hydro-Installations. cost ratio is that it attempts to measure only national efficiency gains of a project, i.e., the quate tools for project formulation and oval- THERMAL PoLLUZxox contribution a proposed project makes to an uution to meet at least the needs of the fore- Releases of water stored in the lower p increase in the income of the nation, Equally seeable future. I would also hope you would tions of a reservoir can have an imports at important, however, is the regional impact of join our effort In Congress to update, moder- benefit in reducing the effects of the ala water resource project. It might be in the nize, and make more realistic the factors pollution downstream. The reduction of th r- national interest to increase the pace of in- which should today be cranked into our cost- mal pollution in turn has a beneiloial efF ct dustrial development of rural areas plagued benefit formula. on the fish and wildlife resources in e by underemployment. Although a water re- In summary, a high discount rate decreases reaches of the stream below the-dam. I source project might be instrumental in the apparent desirability of projects where WATER SUPPLY BENEFITS initiating such a change, the, conventional the benefits increase over the life of the proj- Tle present method of evaluating wa er benefit-cost ratio does not include the de- ect, as In the case of recreation. This char- supply and water quality control bene is velopmental benefits. For example, in adds- acteristic is probably the most objectionable does not take credit for all theprimary be e- tion to the prftary benefits currently being feature of the use of a high interest rate in fits.', The current procedure is to assume the evaluated, we should evaluate the potential the economic analysis s of uroj It . A hig apes- benefits are equal to the cost, of the least of each project to create job opportunities, portion y costly alternative method of applying tl$ not only during conttiuution, but also per- than optimum size project. Future enlarge- needed water. With the previous discount manent jobs resulting from industrial de- ments are always more-costly, but more im- For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 ORDDP7S1 Qff R000300140008-4 S 1583 February 17, 1 y roved Fo R I~a1p,? ONAL/Z R 8 I would particularly like to have this infor- mation with regard to the draft treaty of August 24, 1967; the draft treaty of Janu- ary 18, 1968; the joint draft treaty of March 11, 1968; and the final draft of May 31, 1968. In addition, I would like to know which departments of your agency and individuals who are presently assigned to responsibilities in regard to this treaty. Because the treaty will reach the Senate in a matter of days, I would appreciate it if you could expedite the provision of this information. With kind personal regards. Sincerely, 10.1 - JOHN DESOTO, JR., OUTSTANDING MOTORCYCLE RIDER Mr. INOUYE, Mr. President, surfers from around the world have flocked to the beaches of Makaha, Hawaii, to test their skill against the 30-foot waves that break along the reef. As you can imagine, Makaha has produced a company of out- standing surfers. I am very happy to report today that Makaha is the home not only of many surfing enthusiasts but also of an out- standing motorcycle rider-John DeSoto, Jr. A 21-year-old from Makaha, John was named the 1968 U.S. Professional 250 MotoCross Champion after compet- ing against some of the best motorcycle riders in the United States and Europe. He is currently en route to Europe where he and his teammate will com- pete for the world championship. They will be the first American team ever to contest these difficult races. I wish to join John's family and his many friends in congratulating him on his past success and in sending'very best wishes for the challenges he faces in the world championship races. SENATOR MURPHY TESTIFIES ON TWO CALIFORNIA DISASTERS Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, on Thursday, February 13, the House Com- mittee on Public Works, which responded so timely to recent California disasters, was kind enough to permit me to testify before them. I ask unanimous consent that my statement discussing the recent Califor- nia floods and the Santa Barbara dis- aster be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE MURPHY, RE- PUBLICAN OF CALIFORNIA, HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, Two SUBCOMMITTEES MEETING IN CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 13, 1969 Mr. Chairman and members of the Com- mittee, I want to thank you and the Com- mittee for allowing me this opportunity to testify before you today. Your kindness and courtesies are deeply appreciated. Also, I want to thank you on behalf of the people of California for a timely response, as typi- fied by your field hearings in our State, to the two recent tragedies that have struck California. These two terrible disasters, one natural and the other man-made, which have brought so much personal suffering and inflicted so much damage, demonstrate our limited knowledge and our inadequate procedures for preventing and dealing with damaged re- sources when disaster hits. The recent natural disaster resulted from nine days of rain, causing the worst floods in our State since 1938. It is estimated that the January flooding caused damages ex- ceeding $100 million and 88 persons are known to have lost their lives. Although we are unable to control the forces of nature, we must continue to press forward with our research in the various inter-related parts of our environment and their relationship to our weather and natural disasters. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that bills enacted and resultant actions taken in the area of flood control, erosion, and public works improvement in general have frequently prevented disasters and have helped to minimize the damage resulting therefrom. Senator Randolph, the distin- guished chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, early last week estimated that "flood control structures authorized by Con- gress and built by the Corps of Engineers prevented an excess of $11/4 billion in dam- ages to urban and suburban areas over the State of California." So, such programs of your Committee are surely a wise investment by the American people. Congressmen Johnson, Clausen and Ander- son and other members of the California del- egation have introduced in the House of Representatives "The California Disaster Act of 1969." I have introduced a companion measure, S. 993, in the Senate. This bill pro- vides assistance to the State of California for the reconstruction of areas damaged by re- cent storms, floods, landslides, and high waters. I urge early passage of the "California Disaster Act" so that needed assistance may be given to California to help us repair the damages resulting from this great natural disaster. As part of the Omnibus Rivers and Har- bors Bill of 1966 an amendment authored by me authorized a study of landslides, soil erosion, surface and sub-surface drain- age conditions, flood control, and seismic disturbances. The amendment directs the Corps of Engineers to work in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey of the Interior Department in conducting this study. The recent natural disaster again points out the urgency of the landslide prob- lem in this area, and I urge the Committee to do everything possible to accelerate the completion of this study. The story out of Santa Barbara has been front-page news for approximately two weeks. And well it should be. While the spewing of 230,000 gallons of oil on any area would be a tragedy, I am certain that you who have seen and, therefore, fallen in love with the picturesque and scenic coastal city of Santa Barbara and surrounding area will feel, as I do, a particularly deep sense of personal loss based on your affection for the area. While all of the facts and evidence are not in yet, I would make the following rec- ommendations: First, as the Nixon Administration has ordered, all drilling should stop. The cessa- tion of drilling at Santa Barbara should con- tinue until we can make certain that disas- ters of this kind will not again occur in the future. It should be pointed out that Santa Barbara citizens have been proven right, much to their regret, in their reservations re- garding the beginning of the drilling op- erations a year ago. I am pleased that Presi- dent Nixon has announced that these "res- ervations" will be fully re-examined when the panel, headed by Dr. Lee DuBridge, the President's Science Advisor, undertakes its study which will include methods to prevent "sudden and massive" oil pollution in the future. Secondly, I understand that this disaster would not have taken place under Califor- nia state law and regulations. California, as the Committee knows, has jurisdiction only over leases within a three-mile limit off the California coast. The oil problem at Santa Barbara, occurring beyond the three-mile limit, was under the jurisdiction of the fed- eral government. Further, I understand the governing federal regulations are fifteen years old and have not been upgraded or sub- jected to a full-scale review during this long period. That this should be the case, despite the proliferation of offshore drilling activity, to me, is shocking. I am pleased that the DuBridge panel will review the inadequacies of existing regulations for all wells operat- ing off the coast of the United States and will suggest regulations needed to prevent fu- ture disasters from occurring. Also, because the Santa Barbara oil flow demonstrates that oil does not respect the federal three-mile boundary and because states have a vital interest to see to it that their beaches are not polluted, I recommend that oil leases under the jurisdiction of the federal government be made to comply with state regulations and be subject to state in- spection where the state regulations are stricter than the federal standards. Thirdly, the Santa Barbara incident has underscored once again the need to accel- erate a research development and testing program to increase and improve our capa- bilities for preventing, controlling, and cleaning up of oil spills and other hazardous substances. I recommend an amendment to the research section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize an addi- tional $5 million for the acceleration of re- search on marine pollution problems, such as that posed by oil spillages. This was one of the recommendations of the Commission _ on Marine Science, Engineering, and Re- sources, the Commission which earlier this year issued a report charting the future di- rection of the nation's ocean exploration efforts. Fourth, I urge that contingency plans be developed at the local, state and regional levels to provide for a quick response to oil spills and similar disasters. I understand that no such, plans presently exist today. This is a serious deficiency in our pollution control arsenal and should be remedied im- mediately. In my judgment, such contingent plans should be an integral part of the state and federal water pollution control pro- grams. Fifth, present water pollution control leg- islation dealing with the spillage of oil and other hazardous materials is clearly inade- quate. Financial responsibility must be placed on the-owners and operators of both ships and shore facilities. Present law limits liability to dischargers who are "grossly negligent or willful." I supported legislation which passed the Senate establishing the responsibility of the responsible party to either clean up or authorize the government to do it and later recover the costs from the party responsible. I urge congressional ac- tion on this legislation, similar to that in- troduced by Senator Muskie of Maine in the Senate and Congressman Teague of Califor- nia in the House of Representatives. Sixth, while clearly establishing the re- sponsibility of polluters to bear the cost of clean up, we should also establish an in- surance system to cover the costs growing out of oil spillages. Mr. Chairman, there are more than 12,000 oil wells off the United States' coast and the number is growing by more than 1400 each year. The number of oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, I understand, has be- come so great that the United States Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers with the cooperation of industry have found it necessary to establish fairways for ship travel in and out of the Gulf ports. The lessons. of Santa Barbara are that we must stop, look, and make certain that all possible steps are taken to guarantee as much as possible that similar disasters will not re- sult. Californians, because of the State's long Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 51,1584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE- February 17, 1969 and magnificent coast and because of'! the water problems of the West, have always an keenly aware of the importarice of water and thje dangers of pollution. As Oonunittee niem- bers probably know, I had the pleasure of serving on the Senate Public Works - Com- mittee, and more particularly, on the $ub- cornmittee on Air and Water Pollution, up to this year. As a member of the Subcommittee o## Air and Water Pollution, Ihave supported all the measures designed to accelerate. our nation's battle against pollution. have frequently stated that pollution, bath air and water, is one of the most serious domestic problems confronting our country. With the growing population and expanding technological society, we are told that even with stronger pollution control programs, pollution Is likely to increase in the future. The Commission on Marine Science, ! Iin- giheering and Resources, to which I previops- ly'referred, in its report, "Our Nation and the Sea," noted the promises and potential of the oceans. In addition to calling for an ac- celerated Ocean development program, the Commission rightly gave equal emphasis to an attack on water pollution problems,, The natural disaster In the form of the floods and th man-made disaster at Santa Barbara drive home the significance of one of the meet. Thank you. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, In- vite the attention of Members of on- es to the first of a series of art des o hunger in the United States lien Mr. Homer Bigart, the noted jour ba- is of the New York Time. Mr. Bigart's first article appeared as a fr nt-page story in yesterday's S cjay Times. It is a moving account, centering on hunger and malnutrition in palls' of South Carolina. The Senate Select Committee on tu- trition and Human Needs has for several weeks been looking into the extent, the n tune, the cause, and the eli_minatign of hiiliger in the United States. We Jiave been assisted in that effait by the fi- n of the distinguished Junior Se afar f South Carolina (Mr. I-I0LL GS) , w o will testify before our committe on F bruary 18, together with other autlior- itbes from South Carolina. Mr, President, I ask unanimous on- sent that the article by Mir. Big ' be printed inthe RECORD. There being no objection, the a cle was ordered to be printed in the RE dRD, a$ follows: ' HUNGER IN AMERICA: STARK DEPRIVI6N HAUNTS A LAND OF PLENTY-I I BLUFFTON, S.C.-Hunger is a noun that means, among other things, a com ling desire for food, a nagging emptiness of s - a h and gut. Persons old enough t re- ember the Great Depression nisy recall go- ing hungry, but today it is a sensation gen- erally reserved for those mired in po etty. Chronic hunger seems so rf'lnote in this bounteous land that reports of extreme al- n trition among Negroes in the rural uth, ,among migrant farm workers, among 316xl- cah-Americans and reservation Indians lave n set down as exaggerations and lies the o servers frequently assailed as charl tans o do-gooders who would sap the, initi five the hungry poor by expanding gveaay" Federal food programs or even conspiring for adoption of a guaranteed minimum wage. Here in Beaufort County, Donald E. Catch, an intense youthful-looking country doctor, has been shunned by the white community for insisting that hunger is a dally fact of life among the black families of this mossy tidewater. He began losing his white patients two years ago after he charged publicly that he had seen children dying of starvation, that most black children of his area were in- festedwith worms, and that families were living in hovels worse than the pigsties of his native Nebraska. The Beaufort Gazette accused him of "run- ning his mouth." Every other doctor in the county signed a statement deploring his "un- substantiated allegations," contending that the "rare cases of infant malnutrition" that came to their attention were invariably due to "parental inexperience, indifference or gross neglect." And the County Health Offi- cer, Dr. H. Parker Jones, said he had "never seen a case of starvation or extreme malnu- trition." Ostracized by the staff of Beaufort Coun- ty Memorial Hospital, annoyed by threaten- ing telephone calls, boycotted by white pa- tients, Dr. Catch closed his Beaufort office, sold his home and moved with his British- born wife and two young sons back to Bluff- ton (pop. 356), where he had started his practice 10 years ago. One Chilly, overcm;t day at the tag end of January Dr. Catch consented to take a visitor on a tour or Negro shanties near Bluffton, LZKZ A MISSIONARY OUTPOST The doctor, who sometimes appears discon- solate and withdrawn, peered glumly at the scene through horn-rimmed spectacles that kept sliding down his nose. From the clay road the weathered shanties, woodsmoke curling from the chimneys, looked quite charming. But Dr. (latch, in his low tired voice, spoke only of the overcrowding, the filth and the smell of poverty within. The Gatches had taken over a group of summer cottages on the bank of a tidal creek, living In one, using another for frequent guests (nutritionists and sociologists from all over are coming to see him) and hoping to convert a third into a clinic. (The doctor maintains a large, well-equipped office in the center of the village.) The Catch compound, shaded by live oaks decked in Spanish moss, had the quiet, mournful Isolation of a missionary outpost in central Africa. The African connection was further strengthener: when Dr. Catch re- marked that he had treated several children for kwashiorkor, a disease generally thought to exist only in underdeveloped countries. Kwashiorkor is a Ghanaian word meaning literally "the disease that takes the child after It leaves the mother's breast." It is a disease of extreme protein deficiency, a starvation often bro-.Ight on by a mother's inability to breast-feed an infant. Down a dirt road Dr. Catch paused at the decaying stoop of a family named Kinnard. Silent children with skinny legs sat listlessly on floors and beds. Fifteen people lived in the shack, Dr. Catch said, and there was no privy. COMFORTABLE WHILE STILL He went directly to a young woman who was holding a crying, seven-month-old baby girl. He had examined the baby before, he said, and had detected symptoms of both kwashiorkor and scurvy. He remarked how the baby's hair had thinned, how the hair- line had receded about an inch, and how the hair color had changed from black to dirty gray. These were the a tigmata of kwashiorkor, he said. He took the infant girl from the mother's arms and placed her on a sofa. The baby kept her matchstick legs c.rawn up and raised her arms until the tiny hands were bent close to her head. Then she stopped crying. "As long as the baby is completely still, she's comfortable," Dr. Catch said, "but pick her up and she'll start crying again." He noted the extreme dryness of the skin, the absence of subcutaneous tissue. He said the baby's diet was so deficient in iron that her hemoglobin count was "half of what it should be." The baby's mother had been out of work since December. Dr. Catch said the infant was now getting some baby formula food. It would probably live, he said, but he feared it' had suffered irreversible damage through growth retardation of bones and brain cells. As he left, Dr. Catch noticed a 3-year-old girl sitting on the stoop, staring vacantly at the brown fields. Her legs and face were bloated by edematose swellings, the result probably of Vitamin A deficiency, the physi- cian said, and the same deficiency was im- pairing her vision. "There's. just no excuse for rickets in this country," complained Dr, Catch as he drove to another shack, hunting this time a whole family that he claimed was rachitic, a mother and five children. Rickets is a disease of infancy and child- hood resulting from a deficiency of Vitamin D and characterized by soft, deformed bones. The rachitic family was not at home, but Dr. Gatch found them on the stoop of a neighboring house. ALL HAVE MISSHAPEN LEGS The victims had gotten some relief and were now on a proper diet, Dr. Catch said. All had misshapen legs. The mother, who seemed stout and cheerful, was very bow- legged; her children were either bowlegged or knock-kneed. Dr. Catch commented that the legs of the three older children seemed to have straightened somewhat, but the twisted spindly legs of the two youngest re- mained badly deformed. Milk is the main source of Vitamin D, Dr. Gatch noted, and the family might never have been blighted with rickets if fortified milk had been available to them. But the Government's food donation pro- grams for the domestic poor did not provide fortified dry milk until the end of 1968, Dr. Catch might have been angrier had he known that since 1965, at the insistence of the United States Public Health; Service, the De- partment of Agriculture had been shipping dry milk enriched by Vitamins A and D to American aid programs overseas. The three-year gap during which fortified milk was sent overseas while being denied to the poor at home came to light last month in testimony before the Senate Select Commit- tee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Dr. Catch stopped at an abandoned coun- try store. Inside, two bedridden old ladies had found terminal shelter. One of them, crippled by rheumatoid arthritis, had been rescued from a mouldering shack where the bedding stank of urine and feces. The other was afflicted by Wernicke Syndrome, which Dr. Catch said was characterized by loss of memory and confabulation (filling in a memory gap by falsifications that the patient accepts as correct). DIET OF RICE AND GRITS Dr. Catch said he believed Wernicke Syn- drome could have been induced by lack of thiamine, which is essential for growth, nor- mal function of the nervous system and normal metabolism. Thiamine is found in liver, lean meat, eggs, whole grain or en- riched cereal and cereal products. The old ladies, Dr, Catch suspected, had been eating little more than rice and grits. Now they were on Medicare and presum- ably getting a better diet. The old store was spotlessly clean, neater than most nursing homes. I I Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71 B0 0140006-4 United States of America Vol. 115 r C:ongrcssional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 IS t CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1969 Senate The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, and was called to order by the Vice President. The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following prayer: Almighty God, whose we are and whom we serve, we commend our Nation to Thee and Thy servants in this place to the guidance of Thy higher wisdom. Come upon us with renewing power that as we work for others we may show our love for Thee. in our work make us diligent, in our travels give journeying mercies, in our pleasures spare us regrets, in our speech make us instruments of Thy truth, and in all we do may we advance Thy kingdom, that at the end we may be workmen who "needeth not to be ashamed." Through Christ our Lord. Amen. THE JOURNAL Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Tues- day, February 4, 1969, be dispensed with. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE RE- CEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT Under authority of the order of the Senate of February 4, 1969, the Secretary of the Senate, on February 7, 1969, re- ceived the following message from the House of Representatives: That, pursuant to section 8002 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the chair- man of the Committee on Ways and Means had appointed Mr. MILLS, Mr. BOGGS, Mr. WATTS, Mr. BYRNES of Wis- consin, and Mr. UTT as members of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, on the part of the House. The message also informed the Sen- ate that, pursuant to section 712(a) (2) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (title 50, appendix, United States Code, see. 2162(a) (2) ), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, had appointed-Mr. PATMAN, Mr. BARRETT, Mrs. SULLIVAN, Mr. WIDNALL, and Mr. BROCK as members of the Joint Com- mittee on Defense Production, on the part of the House. The message further informed the Senate that, pursuant to the provisions of section 1, Public Law 372, 84th Con- gress, as amended, the Speaker had ap- pointed Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey, Mr. MURPHY of New York, Mr. HALPERN, and Mr. FISH as members of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission, on the part of the House. The message also informed the Sen- ate that, pursuant to the provisions of section 105(c), Public Law 624, 84th Congress, the Speaker had appointed Mr. STEED, Mr. COHELAN, and Mr. KYL as members of the Committee on the House Recording Studio. The message further Informed the Senate that, pursuant to the provisions of section 202(b), Public Law 90-259, the Speaker had appointed Mr. MILLER of California and Mr. PETTIS as members of the National Commission on Fire Pre- vention and Control, on the part of the House. The message also informed the Senate that, pursuant to' the provisions of sec- tion 1, Public Law 86--420, the Speaker had appointed Mr. Nix, chairman, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. JOHNSON of California, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. DE LA GARZA, Mr. FRASER, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. SPRINGER, Mr. MORSE, Mr. HARVEY, Mr. WHALLEY, and Mr. BUSH as members of the U.S. dele- gation of the Mexico-United States In- terparliamentary Group, on the part of the House. The message further informed the Senate that, pursuant to the provisions of section 401(a), Public Law 414, 82d Congress, the Speaker had appointed Mr. CELLER, Mr. FEIGHAN, Mr. RODINO, Mr. MCCULLOCH, and Mr. CAHILL as members of the Joint Committee on Immigration and Nationality Policy, on the part of the House. The message also informed the Senate that, pursuant to the provisions of sec- tion 1002, Public Law 90-226, the Speaker had appointed Mr. DOWDY and Mr. HOGAN as members of the Commission on Revision of the Criminal Laws of the District of Columbia, on the part of the House. The message announced that the House had passed a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 414) making a supplemental appro- priation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, in which it requested the concurrence of the Sen- ate. The message also anounced that the House had agreed to the following con- current resolutions, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: H. Con. Res, 124, Concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the two Houses of Congress from Friday, February 7, 1969, to Monday, February 17, 1969; and H. Con. Res, 133. Concurrent resolution commending the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America for their fine work and contribu- tion to American youth. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT Under authority of the order of the Senate of February 4, 1969, messages in writing from the President of the United States were received on February 5, 1969, by the Secretary of the Senate submit- ting sundry nominations, which were re- ferred to the appropriate committees. (For nominations received on Febru- ary 5, 1969, see the end of Senate pro- ceedings of today, February 7, 1969.) MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED DURING ADJOURN- MENT CONCERNING THE TREATY ON NONPROLIFERATION OF N-U- CLEA R Under authority of the order of the Senate of February 4, 1969, the Secretary of the Senate, on February 5, 1969, re- ceived the following message from the President of the United States, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: To the Senate of the United States: After receiving the advice of the Na- tional Security Council, I have decided that it will serve the national interest to proceed with the ratification of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Accordingly, I request that the Senate act promptly to consider the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification. I have always supported the goal of halting the spread of nuclear weapons. I opposed ratification of the Treaty last fall in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. My request at this time in no sense alters my condemnation of that Soviet action. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Approved elease 2001/08/28: CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 S 1386 ministration's policy of negotiation rather than confrontation 1 with the USSR. I believe that the Treaty can be an important step in our endeavor to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and that it advances the purposes of out Atoms for Peace program which I have' supported since its inception during President Eisenhower's Administration. In submitting this request I wish to endorse the commit sent made by pre- vious Administration that the United States will, when safeguards are applied under the Treaty, permit the Interna- tional Atomic Energy Agency to apply its safeguards to allnuclear activities in the United States, exclusive of', those ac- tivities with direct national sedurity sig- I also reiterate our willingn s to join with all Treaty parties to take ppropri- ate measures to insure that potential benefits from peaceful applications of nu- clear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon partie to the GRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE February 7, -19 9 "strengthen the structure of, 'peace," therefore, I urge the Senate' 'prompt consideration and positive actiohon this Treaty. i{ICHARD NIXON. NTHE WHITE Housa, February 5, 1969. REPORT OF A COMMITTE SUB- MITTED DURING ADJO ENT Under authority of the orde of the Senate of February 4, 1969, Mt. PROx- miRE, from the Joint Economic ommit- tee, on February 6, 1969, submit *d a re- port entitled "Federal Reserve scount Mechanism: System Propos s for Change" (Rept. No. 8), which jvss or- dered to be printed. EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF Al COM- MITTEE SUBMITTED DURI24 AD- JOURNMENT Under authority of the order { of the Senate of February 4, 1969, Mr. ItAREOR- ouGH, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, reported favorabli the following nominations: 1 James 1). Hodgson, of California] to be Arnold R. Weber, of Illinois, to be{af As- ~sistant Secretary of Labor; Elizabeth Duncan Koontz, of Nort Caro- lina, to be Director of the women's reau, Department of Labor; Lee A. DuBridge, of California, to be Di- ~ector of the Office of Science and Tech- rology; and , Willie J. Usery, Jr., of Georgia, to, tie an Assistant Secretary of Labor. { MESSAGE FROM THE PRESI ENT A message in writing from the 1?resi- dent of the United States submitting nominations was communicated the Senate by Mr. Geisler, one o , his secretaries. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As In executive session, The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION Mr: RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representa- tives on House Joint Resolution 414. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be- fore the Senate, House Joint Resolution 414, making a supplemental appropria- tion for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, which was read twice by its title. Mr. RUSSELL. I ask unanimous con- sent that the Senate proceed to its im- mediate consideration. The VICE ]?RESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the joint resolution? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, yester- day the. House of Representatives passed this joint resolution, making a supple- mental appropriation of $36 million to the Bureau of Employment Security un- der the Department of Labor for unem- ployment compensation for Federal em- ployees and ex-servicemen. Under the program, claims of unem- ployed Federal employees and ex-serv- icemen are processed by the State un- employment insurance agencies on the same basis as claims of other unemployed workers whose employment is covered under the State unemployment compen- sation law. Federal funds are allocated to the States, which act as agents for the Federal Government in the payment of these benefits. The period of extended coverage varies from 22 to 39 weeks among the States. During the first half of fiscal year 1969, the average payment for Federal employees was $44.20 each week for a period of 8.9 weeks, while the average for ex-servicemen was a weekly payment of $44.60 for 5.1 weeks. The Department of Labor submitted a budget request oi' $99,800,000 for the 1969 program to the Bureau of the Budget, which in turn approved an estimate of only $92,200,000, the amount of the 1969 appropriatoin. Separations under each category have exceeded the original estimates; thus, the President's message of January 17, 1969, requesting supplemental appropri- ations for fiscal year 1969, included an additional $36 million for the program. The appropriation of funds for this program has become most urgent in that as of February 1, 1969, only $4.4 million remained available. Expenditures for the month of January were $13.8 million. The Department of Labor advises that States will not be able to make payments after the close of business today. Unless funds are provided at once, thousands of persons-including servicemen returned from Vietnam for separation-will go to their local unemployment compensation offices next week to find their payments delayed until these additional funds are appropriated. I am sure none of us wishes to see the servicemen returning from Vietnam for separation finding it impossible to draw these funds from their local unemploy- ment compensation offices. I now, by agreement reached with leaders of the Committee on Appropria- tions, request that this item be promptly passed as now embraced in House Joint Resolution 414. Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, on be- half ,of the minority leader, I am pleased to say that the minority joins in the re- quest for immediate consideration and favorable action. Several colleagues have received word from their States indicat- ing the need for the appropriation-the most recent was received this morning. The junior Senator from Michigan in- formed me that unless this money is al- lowed, there will not be any further payments starting on Monday morning, This obligation has already been con- tracted. The problem arises because of underestimating the amounts required. The resolution has been here since the middle of January, and I join in the Senator's request for immediate consid- eration and favorable action. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a telegram from the National Legislative Commission of the American Legion, which points out the grave condition that will exist if this joint resolution Is not passed. There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WASHINGTON, D.C., February 6,1969. HOn. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropria- tions, Old Senate Office Building, Wash- ington, D.C.: The American Legion is deeply concerned that many recently discharged veterans are denied unemployment compensation because UC funds are exhausted. We understand that $19.8 million in supplemental funds for this purpose was requested by the President Jan- uary 17 last. Failure of the Congress to pro- vide this money prior to the upcoming recess will work a severe hardship an thousands of needy ex-sevicemen across the country. We respectfully urge you to take prompt action to assist these jobless veterans during their readjustment to civilian life. HERALD E. STRINGER, Director, National Legislative Commis- sion, the American Legion. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr, President, on many occasions the Con- gress has had to provide additional sums of money to take care of the needs for the unemployment compensation for Federal employes and ex-servicemen program. I do not believe there is any way a firm estimate can be submitted to Congress on amounts of money which will be nec- Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 1478 Approved F di3CNOR , A312RE BDP-7$' A R0003001#W y 7, 1969 preparing war, could be used in better ways so as to make the people of the United States and all over the world happier by taking the resources of Rus- sia, the United States, and other coun- tries and converting them into commodi- ties to be used in trade. Again, I would certainly advise that we try to trade with Russia, that we try to make available to Russia our know- how in agriculture and, in that way, it is my sincere belief that we could find some ways and means to get closer to the Rus- sian people. This would prevent us from having to spend billions of dollars which could be utilized in this country to assist the needy. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. I should like to say to the Senator that that is as refreshing a speech as I have ever heard the distin- guished Senator make. As the Senator knows, we often agree and we often dis- agree. But the Senator's remarks sounded to me like the ALLEN ELLENDER of the Taft-Ellender bill, and I would like to congratulate the Senator. Mr. ELLENDER. I thank the Senator very much. TV STATEMENTS BY SENATOR BYRD OF WEST VIRGINIA ON POVERTY PROGRAM, TAX LAWS, AND MID- DLE EAST, FEBRUARY 5, 1969 Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- dent, on Februai`y 5, 1969, I made state- ments for television regarding the Of- flee of Economic Opportunity, tax laws, and the Middle East situation. I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of these statements be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the tran- script was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows: BYRD TOR PHASING OUT OEO I think the Office of Economic Opportunity should be phased out this summer when its Congressional authority expires. I am not opposed to all of the programs that come under the OEO. In fact, I have had gen- erally good reports from West Virginia con- cerning Project Head Start and the Neigh- borhood Youth Corps, but the Job Corps, Vista, and some of the Community Action Programs, have often come under heavy fire in West Virginia. In some areas-Washing- ton, D.C., for example-these programs have been used to foment unrest among the poor, and the war on poverty has at times become a war against society. So the time has come to separate the good from the bad programs. The bad should be dropped, and the good programs should be transferred from OEO to other agencies where they will be more efficiently administered for the benefit of the poor-who all too often under the present set-up have received little or no real help from the millions of dollars spent. BYRD URGES NEW LOOK AT TAx LAWS It is disturbing to me that a few Ameri- can citizens with very large incomes manage to escape paying personal income taxes. Re- cent testimony before a Congressional com- mittee showed that 155 persons with ad- justed gross incomes above $200,000-21 of whom had incomes of more than one mil- lion dollars a year-paid no income taxes in 1967. This is not fair. I think that Congress must do something about it. The average taxpayer in West Virginia pays his share while a few with big incomes throughout the country get away with paying nothing. I also think that Congress should take a new hard look at tax-exempt foundations, and such things as commercial properties and business enterprises that pay no taxes because they are owned by churches and charitable organi- zations. The tax laws should be equally ap- plied to all businesses and to all citizens. COOL THE ARMS RACE, BYRD SAYS The events in the Middle East are a serious threat to world peace. There Is urgent need for the United States and the Soviet Union, backed by Britain and France, to exert their influence, individually and through the United Nations and other channels, in get- ting the Arabs and Israelis to start talking with one another instead of shooting at one another. There can be no meaningful, last- ing peace in the Middle East except by agree- ment between the Jews and the Arabs them- selves. The United States and the Russians should take immediate action to cool the arms race that has been fostered in the Mid- dle East by agreeing between themselves to de-escalate their part in the weapons buildup that has armed the opposing sides. Failure to do this may result in another war. THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATIQN TL-SURVIVAL OR DISISTER Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to read a statement prepared by Senator MONTOYA. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. STATEMENT BY SENATOR MONTOYA, READ BY SENATOR BYRD OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, advocates of the non-proliferation treaty believe it will stimulate further progress toward arms con- trol and disarmament, an objective which they consider necessary for a lasting and se- cure peace. They point out the Article VI, which requires the parties to continue nego- tiations on additional disarmament measures, and hold that the treaty will not endure unless the nuclear powers take additional steps in the direction of disarmament and an improved international security system. One of these steps, in this view, would probably be a limitation on growth of the nuclear weapons stockpiles of the existing nuclear powers (this has sometimes been called "vertical" proliferation as opposed to "horizontal" proliferation, which refers to the spread of nuclear weapons to additional nations). Many non-nuclear states have al- ready declared that it is unfair to expect them to renounce ever acquiring nuclear weapons when no corresponding curb is placed on the existing nuclear powers, and to ask them to submit their peaceful activi- ties to inspection when no inspection re- quirements are placed on the states known to be producing weapons. Accordingly, they have made it clear that they will expect the nuclear powers to reach agreement in a reasonable time on measures curtailing their nuclear power, such as a comprehensive nu- clear test ban or a cutoff of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes. Another step considered by many as neces- sary to keep the non-nuclear nations as members of a non-proliferation treaty would be the development of a more reliable sys- tem to provide the non-nuclear nations se- curity against nuclear attack by a nuclear power. Since non-nuclear nations would be asked to renounce the nuclear weapons which might deter a nuclear attack against them, some of these states have contended, the existing nuclear powers would be obligated to improve the world's present peacekeeping and security systems to make up for the renounced nuclear weapons. The security as- surances resolution passes by the Security Council in conjunction with the treaty is a first step. The devising of such measures, proponents contend, would be one step more toward the replacing of a security system based on deterrence and involving an upward spiral of armaments with a less dangerous system based on international peace-keeping machinery. Reducing international tension through such measures, this view holds, would make it easier to resolve underlying political problems. Proponents of the non-proliferation treaty also believe that the peaceful nuclear tech- nology of non-nuclear nations will benefit by the treaty. First, they contend that by fore- going attempts to manufacture costly nu- clear weapons, non-nuclear states will be able to devote more of their resources to and concentrate their efforts on the devel- opment of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Second, in addition to the specific provisions of the treaty to encourage inter- national cooperation in the peaceful uses, they believe the treaty will create an atmos- phere conducive to an expanded program for promoting peaceful technology because it will alleviate fear that exchange of informa- tion and material and technology might be used for weapons purposes. In their view, the treaty must cover the manufacture of all nuclear explosives, even if intended for peaceful purposes, because any nuclear explosive can be used as a weapon. They believe that it Is in the inter- est of nuclear powers such as the United States to make provisions to assure the non- nuclear-weapon signatories that they will have fair access to any potential benefits of nuclear explosions to compensate these na- tions for giving up the right to manufacture nuclear explosives themselves, and indeed they believe that without such provisions some non-nuclear nations would be unlikely to accept the treaty. Under Secretary Katzen- bach said on April 26, 1968: The peaceful application of nuclear explosives is still in a relatively experimental stage. Its technical and economic feasibility has not yet been fully demonstrated, its col- lateral effects are not completely known, and It is too early to judge whether it will achieve broad political acceptability. Several things are clear, however. One Is that even an optimistic assessment of its potential uses would not justify the enor- mous expenditure of time, money, and sci- entific and technical talent required to de- velop nuclear devices for this purpose alone. A second inescapable fact-brought to light during the development of the draft treaty- was that a treaty against the proliferation of nuclear weapons would be unsatisfactory if it did not cover all nuclear explosives de- vices, including those intended for peaceful uses. This is because there is not now, and we cannot conceive that there ever will be, any type of peaceful nuclear device which would be incapable of being used for destruc- tive purposes. Faced with these facts, the treaty negotia- tors evolved what we believe is a fair, sensible, and workable approach to the problem of peaceful nuclear explosions. They coupled nuclear weapons with other nuclear ex- plosive devices in the treaty's basic provisions. At the same time, recognizing both the eco- nomic absurdity of a country's developing nuclear explosives solely for peaceful pur- poses and the inequity of giving any com- mercial advantage to nuclear-weapon states, they inserted an article requiring all parties to cooperate in insuring that potential bene- fits be made available on a nondiscrimina- tory basis to non-nuclear-weapon parties. The treaty makes clear that the charge for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. Services are made avail- able through an appropriate international Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 February 7;4p-.9yed For Re~S1~Q~lA7.C~t 600300140006-4 safety, and housing. In relation to this "so- cial" aspect, professional law enforcement !planners and their elected officials wil prob- ably have to suffer the same type of initial shock which other planning effort; have ,undergone in reaction to citizen i volve- ment and participation. In an area as diverse and having a9 much effect upon people as law enforcement, local government will find considerable pressure to involve the citizen, particularly the poor who suffer more than any from inadequate law enforcement. Law enforcement planners will be increasingly called upon to fipd ap- lpropriate mechanism for listening and involving the citizen in setting goals Ind de- itermining priorities. As counties, many for the first tim, , ;move toward large-scale law eiforcemen plan- Ining, It will be increasingly impor apt to keep two factors in balance. First, th temp- tation for "action now" will most li sly be Mover-whelming. Mounting public p essure, internal county organizational press and ,the. deadlines and demands of fede at and ,state administrators could lead to 1Rimal and superficial local planning efforts i order to achieve immediate resulft, Secon llt be- cause the problem of law enforcement re- form in all its dimensions is so dive se and complex, there will be the danger of ogging down in technique or reaching for pl nning goals which are neither politically m r. eco- nomically feasible. Only careful an con- sidered planning, involving all the 1 tr en- forcement functions and all the i iidic- tions, will result in sound criteria for action and a blueprint for much needed cha ge. THE ABM SYSTEM Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, Bread in the RECORD of last Tuesday tha there ,was quite a debate on the qu on of the anti-ballistic-missile system t t was authorized by the Congress last ear. I regret I was not present to partici ate in I am prouC to say that in the 4ppro- priations Committee, as well as 4n the floor of the Senate, I opposed an voted against the appropriation of fu ds to !construct the ABM. The reasons ad- jvanced by the Department of L efense at that time for the construction of the !ABM, as I understood them, wei a that we had to do something to protect our- selves against China. Of course, that was ,just a thin veil to get authority cr. the Department of Defense to proceed with this program. ! But it developed later that the eason for the beginning construction w to be ,able to bargain better with R ia. In ,other words, if we gave the Pentag n au- thority to build an ABM, it wo ' give the State Department a little level al=e in our approach to discussions with ussia, not only on the ABM program, ut on !other matters in which both coiaitri are vitally interested. , It was my privilege to spend 3 days in Russia last year. I am now in th proc- ess of preparing a report on my Visit. I found much progress in Russia. Ilfound that the people of Russia were very de- sirous of being friendly with us. It is my belief that unless and ixitil we can dispel the fear that now ex is be- Itween us and Russia I doubt that we can come to any concrete concl an on any of the great world prabl that confront both the United states 4d the U.S.S.R. Mr. President, during the last 20 years our country has spent in excess of $130 billion in order to isolate Russia. The VIE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 4 additional minutes. The VICE PRLSIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. EUENDE:2. Mr. President, in ad- dition to that, we spent billions of dollars in order to construct a g- of steel around the periphery o ussia. We started out with Japa we went on to Okinawa, we went on a the Philippines, and on to North Af ca, and, of course, Europe. On my third vis to that vast country, I was asited, "IN" _y do you build those airfields?" Of c urse, my answer was, "For defense." ut you could not make the Russian pe pre believe that by any Mr. Presiders , it strikes me that if we are to be in a pc ition to deal'with Russia, we should find some ways and means of bridging that v st chasm that exists be- tween us the f ar that exists between us, and the suspic ns. I can find no solace in saying that e: will be able to do busi- ness with the if we continue to build up the forces hat have resulted in so much fear amo g the Russian people in Mr. President the reason, advanced by the Secretary of ]Defense as to the neces- sity for const sting the ABM system was that it woul 'l allow our diplomats to negotiate from 4 position of strength in order to deal w th the Soviet Union. I have often ar led and stated that I thought it was a mistake for us to per- mit the Departr, ent of State and the Defense Departm nt to live so closely to- gether. The milit ry should be the serv- ant of diplomat , and not its master. Today it is diffict t to tell who is leading whom. For the la; t 20 years it has seemed to me that the P ntagon's cart has been allowed to get i front of the diplomatic horse. In my amble judgment, if we continue such process, I can see no hope for real ternational cooperation on the things at matter. I notice fro a statement by President Nixon that h proposes to visit our NATO allies next year. I am v y hopeful that he will make no effort o renew or to extend the NATO allianc . States to work closer together. To me, it is ::arcical for us, in one instance to say that we want ,world peace and to deal with Russia, and then, in another instance say that we want to re-create the NATO alliance-in order to protect Western Europe from Russia. The fear that now exists in the minds of the Russian people is bound to be in- creased lL wekeep on doing things which intensify that fear. I do not know anything that will tend in that direction more than if we con- tinue to deal with and re-create the NATO alliance with which we have been 7S1477- dealing and carrying the whole burden for the past 20 years. We should learn from history that this has not worked. The VICE PR1 SIDEINT. The time of the Senator from Louisiana has expired. Mr. ELLENDER. I ask unanimous con- sent to proceed for 2 additional minutes. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. ELLENDEf. Russia, in the mean- time, has ?,grown stronger than ever be- fore. Every time we do anything further to widen the breach between our two countries, the longer,, it will take to get together. It is my candid opinion, and my judg- ment, that our country should, by all means, find ways and means to deal with the Russian people. The more we do to widen the chasm which exists between us and Russia today, the longer it will take the two superpowers of the world to get together. Russia appears to be our only real antagonist in the world today. It is a country which is capable of giving us trouble because of its huge population, its immense resources, and the military' technical knowledge it possesses. If Rus- sia takes means to protect itself against the United States, and we do the same thing, we should be able to avoid the areas of conflict so as to get together and reach agreement on the other issues of concern to us both. Mr. President, it is my further belief that we will have a hard time making progress with Russia if we depend solely on dealing with the Russian leadership. What we need to do is to get the people of Russia and the people of the United States better acquainted with one an- other. As I stated 10 years ago, in my reports on my visits to Russia, that can be ac- complished if only we will engage in a realistic exchange program. I am hopeful that this can be realized in the future. If we can have many Rus- sians from all walks of life visit America, even if we have to follow them around with FBI agents, it would pay us to do it. I think what we should do is make the Russians envious of our way of life so that they will in turn get their leaders to let them live more as we do. Now, Mr. President, I knew Mr. Khru- shchev very well, and as I said on many occasions-and I was criticized for it-I do not know of a leader in Russia more anxious to respond to the will of the Rus- sian people than Mr. Khrushchev. Many things have happened in Russia between the visits that I made there in 1955, 1956, 1957, 1961, and 1968 which make be believe that all these changes did not come about because the leader- ship desired it but because the people demanded it. Trends toward more liberal ways of doing things have been estab- lished, and those trends cannot be re- versed, no matter what the leadership desires. What we should do is encourage those trends. I feel confident that if we can do that, there is no question that the re- lationship between us and Russia can be improved. Then all the billions of dollars being spent by us, as well as Russia, in Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 Febr ary `7, 196Approved IUONMMW'AG8AMC 4R000300140006-4 S 1479 body with adequate representation of non- mainder by chemotherapy.' Of the 80% of such experiments are shown in Fig. 1 (Fig. 1 nuclear-weapon states. It does not, however, cases treated by radiation or surgery, com- not printed in RECORD), which displays cell rule out bilateral arrangements for such bined treatment accounts for a subbtantial survival probabilities as a function of radia- services so long as there is no resulting dis- fraction. Therefore, even a small improve- tion dose for human kidney cells. A change crimination. Thus it avoids premature deci- ment in radiotherapy techniques would bene- in curve shape is apparent and the sigmoid sons assuring non-nuclear-weapon states fit a large number of patients, curves at low LET are indicative of cell who are party to it that they will not be dis- A substantial proportion of radiotherapy death due to accumulated sublethal injury oriminated against if and when it proves treatments are apparently total or partial that is subject to early repair while the ex- technically and economically feasible' failures. Often this comes about because ponential curves at high LET are indicative of cell death due to single irreversible A STEP TOWARD MORE EFFECTIVE CANCER TREATMENT Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to read a statement prepared by Senator MONTOYA. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. STATEMENT OF MRS. MONTOYA, READ BY SENA- TOR BYRD OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, our age abounds in acts of technological outrage. Wherever we turn we can see the fruits of man's mind being put to work in warped ways to the further detriment of people. At times it takes the form of a military adapta- tion of a laboratory process. Other times it is an industrial ' or commercial misapplica- tion of scientific research. But this is not always the case. In my home state of New Mexico wg have always been proud bf the major research being done at the unique facilities located there. Much of America's front line of de- fense has had its genesis in my home state. There is a concentration of first class minds in New Mexico, many working on basic sci- ence, which other areas would do well to seek to match. Many of 'these men and women are re- sponsible for breakthroughs which can be the saving of life instead of its destruction. Louis Rosen of the Los Alamos Scientific Lab- oratory, has been working on such a con- tribution in the field of cancer treatment through radiation therapy. The suffering and agony such a develop- ment can mean are immeasurable, and some of Mr. Rosen's results deserve mention. I in- clude such an article, from. the December 1968 issue of Nuclear Applications, for inclu- sion in the RECORD. POSSIBILITIES AND ADVANTAGES OF USING NEGA- metastasis has already set in, but in some cases the radiation is inadequate for the events? 8 Cell survival depends in the follow- purpose at hand. One seeks to overcome these ing way on the kind and quantity of radia- latter difficulties by a better choice of radia- tion: 4 9 tion. \r The effective treatment of malignancies by S=exp-( 6Loxp ~- sL radiation involves using types and quanti- ties of radiation adequate for lethal injury where to all malignant cells with no more damage to healthy tissue than can be tolerated by the host organism. In practice, and with radiation sources now in use, the radiothera- pist must strike a delicate balance between destruction to healthy and tumorous cells, and frequently the dose delivered to the tumorous cells is limited by the viability of healthy tissue following irradiation. The ideal mode of tumor treatment would be one that destroys all the malignant cells, without in any way affecting surrounding tissue or healthy tissue in the tumor volume. This cannot be achieved, even when radio- active substances can be implanted within the tumor. However, this ideal situation could be best approached if one were to use negative pions as the radiation source. This was initially shown by Fowler 2 in an analysis in which he compared negative pions to elec- trons, gamma rays, x rays, protons, and heav- ier ions. More recently, I have made calcu- lations for K- and antiprotons. Although these latter have some of the virtues of 'R-, they are not superior in cancer therapy. In fact, they are not quite as effective because the energy deposition of their reaction prod- ucts Is less localized. As of this moment, it is not feasible to use Tr- beams in cancer therapy. To do so would require the beams from all pion-producing accelerators In the world, focused on a single patient, and even then the irradiation time would be excessive (months to years). How- ever, some of the high-flux proton accel- erators now being designed,8 referred to as "meson factories," will permit radiation therapy with negative pions and In reason- able times. THF+ PHYSICS OF CANCER TREATMENT BY RADIATION 4-4 All ionizing radiation affects mammalian cells through ion pair production and excita- tion of atoms and molecules. On the aver- age, ,..,30 eV is dissipated per ion pair. Since technology make possible the attainment of the ionization potential for atomic constitu- very-high-intensity beams of protons at ents of cells is ,..,13 eV, this leaves ,x,20 eV to energies well above the pion-production be dissipated by exciting atoms and mole- threshold. It appears that both circular and cules to bound states and by heat generation. linear machines will be useful for this pur- Most of this 20 eV produces atomic excita- pose. The latter promise beams of -~-1 MA tion followed by dissociation, fluorescence, or under well-controlled conditions. Such pro- energy transfer. However, in complex mole- ton beams are adequate for providing pure cules, such as are abundantly found in tis- high-intensity beams of negative pions for sue, a substantial fraction of the excitations radiation therapy, under conditions of favor- will appear as kinetic energy of the atoms able geometry and of variable size and energy in the molecules. . distribution. With lr- beams, it is feasible to The specific ionization produced by radia- deposit, at essentially any depth in the hu- tion depends on the type and energy of the man organism, at least 100 rad/min of high- radiation. Gamma rays produce ,?.,10 Son pairs linear-energy transfer radiation. This is quite per micron along their path, while alpha sufficient for radiation therapy on deep- particles, near the end of their range, pro- seated tumors and is accomplished under duce ,.,500 times as many. There lies the dif- more favorable conditions than attainable ference between low- and high-linear-energy with other radiation sources.) transfer (LET) radiations. This difference INTROD?IICTION manifests itself in many ways and has pro- Information from England, where rea- found effects on the response of cells to sonably good records are kept for the entire radiation. population, indicates that 40% of cancer Some quantitative understanding of the cases are now treated primarily by radia- effects of ionizing radiation on cell survival tion, 40% primarily by surgery, and the re- has been obtained from analysis of a great variety of experiments. Typical results of ' Department of State Bulletin, May 20, 1968, p. 648-9. Footnotes at end of article. TIVE PIONS IN RADIOTHERAPY (By Louis Rosen, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory) (NoTE.-Recent advances in accelerator radiated cell population D=dose in rads; a, and a2=inactivation cross sections in 2 L=linear energy transfer in McVcm2/g; n_6. The a's are cell inactivation cross sec- tions.8 It appears that e1 increases more rapidly than does a2, as a function of LET. The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of a given type of radiation, defined as the ratio of the dose of 200-keV x rays to produce a given biological effect to the dose of the type of radiation under consideration for producing the same effect, is known to be much greater for high-LET than for low- LET radiation. This is specifically true for cell survival following radiation, but is also true for many other cell processes. The objective of radiation therapy is to injure all tumorous cells, in a given vol- ume, to such an extent that not one of them will be able to initiate regrowth of the tu- mor. At the same time, one must minimize damage to the reproductive capacity of sur- rounding tissue. However, in the best of circumstances, the reproductive capacity of tumorous cells is never more sensitive to radiation than that of dividing healthy cells. Often the tumor contains anoxic regions and these are, in fact, less sensitive to low-LET radiation by perhaps a factor of 3 than are normal cells. A measure of this effect is the oxygen en- hancement ratio (OER), defined as the ratio of the dose required to produce a given effect (e.g., 50% survival) in anoxic cells to that in oxygenated cells. Experiments indi- cate that it varies from ,..:3 for lightly ioniz- ing radiation to 1 for multiply-charged ions. Figure 2 (not printed in RECORD) shows that the oxygen effect is significant. Also from Fig. 2, it can be seen that the OER is ,.,3 in a pair of mouse-tumor survival curves, one fully oxygenated and the other anoxic. Figure 3 (not printed in RECORD) indicates that high LET can remove the sensitivity difference between oxygenated and anoxic cells. This constitutes one very important advantage of this highly ionizing radiation: the injury is not subject to modification by oxygen or recovery. One school, of thought holds that for low- LET radiation, most of the cell deaths result from chemical reactions of peroxides on long 8 They are empirically determined param- eters that relate to the average probability for a lethal encounter of a quantum (or par- ticle) with a cell when a? specific cell popu- lation is subjected to a given type of radia- tion. There are two a's because of the as- sumption, implicit in the above equation, that the effect of radiation containing a spectrum of LET can be reduced to that of two idealized radiations-one of high LET and one of low LET. Radiations of constant LET, if such were achievable, would be represented by a sin- gle e, the magnitude of which would be the probability for a lethal encounter when one quantum (or particle) per cm2 impinges on a target comprising one cell per cm2. Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300140006-4 S 1480 Approved For ReIaN 4MI p I4 00~ 300140006 4eb a 7;`1969 chain molecules in the ca3,l-nucleus. In anoxic the mass of the pion is converted into energy cells, peroxides are less }adily produced by with the consequent violent disruption of the radiolysis, and this may account for lesser Ie0 nucleus. Front this nucleus emerge neu- sensitivity. Cells irradia d with highly ion -trons, protons, alpha particles, _8L1, Be, B, and izing particles are killed mainly by direct C ions. The neutrons, although they carry off interaction of these particles with long chain a sizable fraction of the total kinetic energy, molecules, depolymeriziiq;g these molecules. account for a relatively small portion of the High-LET radiation they lore interac-.:s with energy deposition in the vicil>,,ij`y of pion cap- anoxic and oxygenated ceJls in appro$l mately ture. The charged particles, on the other the same way. However, it should be e mpha- hand, create ionization all along their tra- sized that the high effectiveness with which jectories. Furthermore, since the 110 nucleus densely Ionizing radiation damages the re- Is equivalent to multiple alpha particles, the productive capacity of cells is not well under- dominant mode of decay involves the emir- stood8.Ia-1* sion of one or more alpha particles among In radiation therapy, one usually relies on the reaction products, and these are almost dose fractionation (subdivision) Total doses always of short range,-as is the case for the with x-rays comprise ,.5000 rad delivered in heavier ions. Figure 5 (not printed in REc- 20 doses during a four-week interval.. Dose ORt1) shows the disintegration of an 160 nu- fractionation is effective because recovery of cleus following capture of a negative pion. ! healthy tissue, between irradiations, takes The oxygen was contained injuelear emul- place at a faster pace than does recovery of sion. A complete accounting of the energy tumorous tissue. Experience indicates that, deposition along the path of a negative pion in general, surviving healthy tissue responds beam as it traverses and comes to rest in better to altered conditions than do tumorous water is shown in Fig. 6 (not printed in REc- cells and repopulates faster. ORD) . Approximately 30 MeV of energy is The race between repopulation of normal deposited in the immediate vicinity, within a tissue and of tumorous cells favors the few millimeters, of the capturing nucleus. normal cells because many tumorous polls die Most of this ens:^gy produces high specific as a result of poor nutrition, but it also ionization (high LET), and it is this Ioniza- favors the tumors because they usually con- tion on which one relies for destroying the taro anoxic cells which are more resistant to cancer cells. Figure 7 (not printed in RECORD) radiation. Shows the distribution of specific ionization For dose fractionation-to succee?i, it is resulting at the point where negative pions essential to increase the tt,tai dose at appro- of 96-MeV energy are stopped in water. priate intervals and in precisely the. right Although a significant amount of energy is amounts so that the repgpulation of normal deposited by neutrons, one should recognize cells can overtake the repgpulation of tumor- that this is neutron therapy at Its best, from ous cells. Success or failure therefore depends the standpoint of depth-dose distribution. on the leeway one has Is a result of the The depth-dose distribution is now more differences in radiation ,sensitivity and in favorable than for neutrons from an external healing characteristics of tumorous and source. The neutrons can be imagined to normal cells. focus on the tumor site from all-directions CHARACTER;sTICS OF NEGATIVE Pfotgs while the elastic and inelastic interactions occur at high ene:^gy, where the therapeutic The potential therapeutic properties of effects of neutron:, are at their best. negative pions have been Icing recognized 2,1"- To recapitulate, absorption of a ar- in issue I These therapeutic properties result from involves new phenomena that have no coun- the unique characteristics of negative plons terpart with more conventional types of and their Interactions with, atomic nuclei. radiation. At the end of its path, a ar- is cap- Pions have positive, negative, or, zero tured by a nucleus, of 0, C, or N. Of the total charge. The charged pion with which We shall rest mass of the pion, ..,40 MeV Is expended be concerned Is an unstable particle of in overcoming the binding energy of the mass ,,.,140 MeV. It has zero spin, an Isotopic nucleus, 70 MeV is carried off by neutrons, spin of unity, and a mean life of ,.,2 x 10-8 and ,x,30 MeV appears in the form of protons, sec. If uncaptured, it will decay into a muon alpha particles, and heavier ions. The par- and a mu-neutrino. The moon in turtle decays ticles of Z71 are :mainly of short range a,.d into an electron, a mu neutrino, and an high-ionization density and produce local [electron neutrino. The range-energy rela- high-level energy deposition in the immedi- tion 18 for negative pions is shown in Pig. 4 ate vicinity of capture. By appropriately ad- (not printed in RECORD) It is apparetat that jesting the energy of the pions, this Intense for purposes of therapy, pions must have high-LET, high-R13E local radiation can be energies of 25 to 200 MeV Now, pions of this deposited within the tumor region with energy have a long mean-free-path 4or nu- minimal effect on ,urrounding tissue. clear collisions. The uncharged me bee of the species lives a very short time (,.40-i0 sec TABLE 1.-ENERGY PARTITION FOR r _ mean life) and decays into two gamma; rays. CAPTURE IN WATER 2 The positively charged member almost always comes to rest without undergoing rvciear interaction and then decays. The negatively charged pion also comes to rest before inter- acting. However, it is captured in an outer orbit of a heavy atom (e.g? nn oxygel} atom, assuming the slowing down medium is water), replacing an electron in that atom. ~n a time of