October 3, 1963 (20 pages)

= . Page 9 . The Nugget. .October 3, 1963. Page 9.. has adopted a major and drastic consolidation of these governments, within the framework of the traditional pattern of local control. All of California's big city regions are beset by a-similar confusion of local government, vested in dozens of cities, special districts, and the county. Can there be any doubt that this state through its, legislature will also have to reorganize local government so that it is better ableto handle the preservation of open country, air and water pollution, transportation and other region-wide problems? Conference speakers from England, Holland, and Denmark detailed a variety of ways in which the growth of cities has been guided and controlled under differing government policies. In Denmark, for example, the single major city of Copenhagen is confined to a large central area, with growth radiating out from the center along carefully confined “fingers. ” The Dutch have chosen to encourage growth within a large metropolitan center which is rimmed by smaller cities but separated from them by strictly maintained open country. f The British have actually gone out and built 19 new towns. These towns are designed for about 60,00080,000 people and are intended as more or less self -sufficient communities with a full range of industries and homes catering to all classes, The new towns are kept from spraw ling across the landscape for they are surrounded by large areas zoned as “greenbelt. " ; In California, our cities are spreading across the countryside at a ridiculously rapid rate; three million urban acres have been added since the war, and we may lose four million additional acres of open land, most of it agricultural, in20 years. To avoid this waste, we too will have to think about guiding and shaping and carefully controlling the growth of our cities. The Dutch speaker, the great engineer-planner Jacobus Thijsse, said, “No waste land is now available in the Netherlands," Although much less densely populated, California has just as muchreason to respect every parcel of its land as does Holland or any other country. No area ,in the world can afford to squander its resources. WASHINGTON CALLING NEW CHAMBER -HEAD BATILES BIG U.S. SPENDING SHINGTON---There’s a lion in the streets and his name is Edwin P. Neilan. While he has been president of the United States Chamber of Commerce lessthan five months, Neilan has stirred more of an uproar than the staid Chamber has heard in many years. He says he is going right on regardless of how heavy the barrage of brickbats aimed at him by Congress. t The roar of the Chamber against government is sO familiar a sound that ithas come to be taken for granted. ‘What is new about Neilan is that he seems to be genuinely shocked at the iniquities of big Federal spending and its effect on the vote -getting process. And he reacted with hurt surprise when leading members of Congress at~tacked him for his initial blast. That was his*National Press Club speech in which he said that vote buying and selling in this country was infinitely more ;mmoralthanBritain'scall girl and security scandal., Apparently ithad not occurred to this Delaware banker that he would be denounced for such a sweeping accusation. But the denunciations began on the floor of the Senate and the House, on the basis of advance texts, even before he had made the speech. It is to be reprinted in The Reader's Digest which will give it extensive additional circulation. And Neilan has been going around the country making the same charges and lecturing his audiences on the wickedness of Con, gressional “bagmen” whograb for their share of spending in area redevelopment, accelerated public works and other Federal programs. Thus far Neilan has made only glancing references to the benefits that business gets from government in the form of huge cost-plus contracts in defense and space. This type of spending is on a far larger scale. and a pattern has grown up in the Department of Defense and the Space agency of giving Senators and Congressmen the right to make the first announcement of new contracts going to their areas. " Even when he spoke in Seattle, Wash., one of the principal beneficiaries of defense contracts, Neilan made only a-passing reference to the cushion of defense con+ tracts supporting a sizable segment of American industry. But he says he intends in future speeches to tell business that it's time to end the subsidies and regain its independence. Norhasheso far talked about what is perhaps not only the biggest Federal grab bag but one that cuts directly across the authority of the states and local communities. This is the $41 billion Federal highway program. The Federal government pays for 90 percent of the construction cost. But for this carrot states and cities-surrender the right to say how and where their highways will be built. The prégram has the backing of autos, oil and cement. which is a powerful chunk of private industry. Neilan is speaking next week to the Defense Trans-~portation Industry! convention in Chicago. This offers, ashe is well aware, a splendid opportunity to talk about the dependence of industry on vast defense spending. A novelty in the Neilan approach is the way he bends over backward to try to be fair. In his Seattle speech he said, almost wistfully, "Although I am relatively new in Washington I have the impression that things today are not far different than they were when the Republicans were in power.” As he noted in his first attack, the constant demands on members of Congress from back home, coming both from state and city governments and from industry, take more of the lawmaker's attention. He has less and less time, said Neilan, to give to our real national interests and the national problems involved. : As the tourist to Washington discovers from a visit to the Capitol, only on rare occasions are there more than a scattering of members on the floor of either house. You can be sure a number of the absentees are scouting around the agencies, as likely as not on the prompting of the Chamber of Commerce back home, to nail down funds for a new sewer system or a defense plant. This may be a battle against the windmills by a Don Quixote come ata late hour to the full knowledge of the power of a centralized government. Much of the Neilan target area is the old familiar one covering all government spending and invoking the familiar fetish of a balanced budget. But, windmills or no, the battler shows no signs of calling it off. (Copyright 1963) ---Marquis-Ghilds— ALMOST A FULEGROWN CK. ANO EVE NEVER CAUGHT A EGA.. TAM SINCE MY MASTER 1S GONE FOR A WHILE F WILL OOLeP FISH.. E ADVANTAGE OF THIS ODD BODKINS.. — © 1265 by Dan o'tieil2 TEST BAN TREATY — STR IS A SIGN OF STRENGT By Rep. Samuel Stratton (D. » MOT). Opponents of the limited nuclear test ban have charged © that the treaty was negotiated out of weakness, that the Kennedy administration has reduced the Nation's military might since taking office. Such charges are not only patently absurd; they are demonstrably false. The fact isthat thetest ban treaty was negotiated from a position of strength. W. Averell Harriman, our chief negotiator and a man who accurately assessed Russian aims and strengths as early as the 1940s, succinctly explained the situation: “It seems to me Mr. Khrushchev isnot as violent in his statements since Cuba. I think he has made up his mind that he does not want to be confronted again by President Kennedy. President Kennedy made it very plain that he had to take his offensive wea~ pons out of Cuba or else. And he doesn't want to face that again.” The. fact is that only a vastly improved military posture--which was considerably stronger and considerably more flexible than the one President Kennedy inherited when he took office--enabled the President to force the Soviet backdown in Cuba. : ; I want to emphasize these points: First, there will be noreduction in our military strength as aresult of the test ban. We will maintain our weapons superiority and we will continue to operate our laboratories and facilities necessary for prompt resumption of tests if future events dictate such a course. Secondly, the test ban will be a factor in maintaining our technological superiority and--as Defense Secretary McNamara points out--will be “a principal direct military effect of the treaty on the future military balance. " In other words, the test-ban treaty would help us preserve our military superiority. The extremists who oppose the test ban would like to deny or obscure these facts. But these are facts tney cannot ignore--~ Since taking office President Kennedy has brought about: A 100 percent increase in the number of nuclear warheads available in the strategic alert forces. ~ ‘ A 60 percent increase in the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe. A 45 percent increase in the number of combat -ready Army divisions. A 100 percent increase in the procurement of weapons and equipment for the Army. A 30 percent increase in the number of tactical air squadrons, : A 100 percent increase in the procurement of tactical aircraft. A 60 percent increase in airlift capability. A 175 percent increase in the procurement of airlift aircraft. A 100 percent increase in ship construction and conversion to modernize the fleet. Nearly 600 percent increase in the Special Forces, trained to deal with counterinsurgency threats. A 15,000 man increase in the Marine Corps. A 50 percent increase in the portion of our B-52 bombers on 15-minute alert. A 100 percent increase in MINUTEMAN production capacity. A 50 percent increase in the number of POLARIS submarines scheduled to be in the force by fiscal 1965. The overall proposed buy of POLARIS submarines was increased from 29 to 41. The overall proposed buy of MINUTEMAN was increased from 600 to 950. The masters of the Kremlin are well aware of our military power, even ifthe extremists in this country are not. “+t WOULD HAVE KEPT YOU, (ITTY , BUT ONEN FULL-GROWW CATS ARE act pce Remnant antag e tt ETE It

= . Page 9 . The Nugget.. .October 3, 1963.. Page 9... has adopted a major and drastic consolidation of these governments, within the framework of the traditional pattern of local control. All of California's big city regions are beset by a-similar confusion of local government, vested in dozens of cities, special districts, and the county. Can there be any doubt that this state through its, legislature will also have to reorganize local government so that it is better ableto handle the preservation of open country, air and water pollution, transportation and other region-wide problems? Conference speakers from England, Holland, and Denmark detailed a variety of ways in which the growth of cities has been guided and controlled under differing government policies. In Denmark, for example, the single major city of Copenhagen is confined to a large central area, with growth radiating out from the center along carefully confined “fingers. ” The Dutch have chosen to encourage growth within a large metropolitan center which is rimmed by smaller cities but separated from them by strictly maintained open country. f The British have actually gone out and built 19 new towns. These towns are designed for about 60,00080,000 people and are intended as more or less self -sufficient communities with a full range of industries and homes catering to all classes, The new towns are kept from spraw ling across the landscape for they are surrounded by large areas zoned as “greenbelt. " ; In California, our cities are spreading across the countryside at a ridiculously rapid rate; three million urban acres have been added since the war, and we may lose four million additional acres of open land, most of it agricultural, in20 years. To avoid this waste, we too will have to think about guiding and shaping and carefully controlling the growth of our cities. The Dutch speaker, the great engineer-planner Jacobus Thijsse, said, “No waste land is now available in the Netherlands," Although much less densely populated, California has just as muchreason to respect every parcel of its land as does Holland or any other country. No area ,in the world can afford to squander its resources. WASHINGTON CALLING NEW CHAMBER -HEAD BATILES BIG U.S. SPENDING SHINGTON---There’s a lion in the streets and his name is Edwin P. Neilan. While he has been president of the United States Chamber of Commerce lessthan five months, Neilan has stirred more of an uproar than the staid Chamber has heard in many years. He says he is going right on regardless of how heavy the barrage of brickbats aimed at him by Congress. t The roar of the Chamber against government is sO familiar a sound that ithas come to be taken for granted. ‘What is new about Neilan is that he seems to be genuinely shocked at the iniquities of big Federal spending and its effect on the vote -getting process.. And he reacted with hurt surprise when leading members of Congress at~tacked him for his initial blast. That was his*National Press Club speech in which he said that vote buying and selling in this country was infinitely more ;mmoralthanBritain'scall girl and security scandal., Apparently ithad not occurred to this Delaware banker that he would be denounced for such a sweeping accusation. But the denunciations began on the floor of the Senate and the House, on the basis of advance texts, even before he had made the speech. It is to be reprinted in The Reader's Digest which will give it extensive additional circulation. And Neilan has been going around the country making the same charges and lecturing his audiences on the wickedness of Con, gressional “bagmen” whograb for their share of spending in area redevelopment, accelerated public works and other Federal programs. Thus far Neilan has made only glancing references to the benefits that business gets from government in the form of huge cost-plus contracts in defense and space. This type of spending is on a far larger scale. and a pattern has grown up in the Department of Defense and the Space agency of giving Senators and Congressmen the right to make the first announcement of new contracts going to their areas. " Even when he spoke in Seattle, Wash., one of the principal beneficiaries of defense contracts, Neilan made only a-passing reference to the cushion of defense con+ tracts supporting a sizable segment of American industry. But he says he intends in future speeches to tell business that it's time to end the subsidies and regain its independence. Norhasheso far talked about what is perhaps not only the biggest Federal grab bag but one that cuts directly across the authority of the states and local communities. This is the $41 billion Federal highway program. The Federal government pays for 90 percent of the construction cost. But for this carrot states and cities-surrender the right to say how and where their highways will be built. The prégram has the backing of autos, oil and cement. which is a powerful chunk of private industry. Neilan is speaking next week to the Defense Trans-~portation Industry! convention in Chicago. This offers, ashe is well aware, a splendid opportunity to talk about the dependence of industry on vast defense spending. A novelty in the Neilan approach is the way he bends over backward to try to be fair. In his Seattle speech he said, almost wistfully, "Although I am relatively new in Washington I have the impression that things today are not far different than they were when the Republicans were in power.”

As he noted in his first attack, the constant demands on members of Congress from back home, coming both from state and city governments and from industry, take more of the lawmaker's attention. He has less and less time, said Neilan, to give to our real national interests and the national problems involved. : As the tourist to Washington discovers from a visit to the Capitol, only on rare occasions are there more than a scattering of members on the floor of either house. You can be sure a number of the absentees are scouting around the agencies, as likely as not on the prompting of the Chamber of Commerce back home, to nail down funds for a new sewer system or a defense plant. This may be a battle against the windmills by a Don Quixote come ata late hour to the full knowledge of the power of a centralized government. Much of the Neilan target area is the old familiar one covering all government spending and invoking the familiar fetish of a balanced budget. But, windmills or no, the battler shows no signs of calling it off. (Copyright 1963) ---Marquis-Ghilds— ALMOST A FULEGROWN CK. ANO EVE NEVER CAUGHT A EGA... TAM SINCE MY MASTER 1S GONE FOR A WHILE F WILL OOLeP FISH... E ADVANTAGE OF THIS ODD BODKINS.... — © 1265 by Dan o'tieil2 TEST BAN TREATY — STR IS A SIGN OF STRENGT By Rep. Samuel Stratton (D. » MOT). Opponents of the limited nuclear test ban have charged © that the treaty was negotiated out of weakness, that the Kennedy administration has reduced the Nation's military might since taking office. Such charges are not only patently absurd; they are demonstrably false. The fact isthat thetest ban treaty was negotiated from a position of strength. W. Averell Harriman, our chief negotiator and a man who accurately assessed Russian aims and strengths as early as the 1940s, succinctly explained the situation: “It seems to me Mr. Khrushchev isnot as violent in his statements since Cuba. I think he has made up his mind that he does not want to be confronted again by President Kennedy. President Kennedy made it very plain that he had to take his offensive wea~ pons out of Cuba or else. And he doesn't want to face that again.” The. fact is that only a vastly improved military posture--which was considerably stronger and considerably more flexible than the one President Kennedy inherited when he took office--enabled the President to force the Soviet backdown in Cuba. : ; I want to emphasize these points: First, there will be noreduction in our military strength as aresult of the test ban. We will maintain our weapons superiority and we will continue to operate our laboratories and facilities necessary for prompt resumption of tests if future events dictate such a course. Secondly, the test ban will be a factor in maintaining our technological superiority and--as Defense Secretary McNamara points out--will be “a principal direct military effect of the treaty on the future military balance. " In other words, the test-ban treaty would help us preserve our military superiority. The extremists who oppose the test ban would like to deny or obscure these facts. But these are facts tney cannot ignore--~ Since taking office President Kennedy has brought about: A 100 percent increase in the number of nuclear warheads available in the strategic alert forces. ~ ‘ A 60 percent increase in the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe. A 45 percent increase in the number of combat -ready Army divisions. A 100 percent increase in the procurement of weapons and equipment for the Army. A 30 percent increase in the number of tactical air squadrons, : A 100 percent increase in the procurement of tactical aircraft. A 60 percent increase in airlift capability. A 175 percent increase in the procurement of airlift aircraft. A 100 percent increase in ship construction and conversion to modernize the fleet. Nearly 600 percent increase in the Special Forces, trained to deal with counterinsurgency threats. A 15,000 man increase in the Marine Corps. A 50 percent increase in the portion of our B-52 bombers on 15-minute alert. A 100 percent increase in MINUTEMAN production capacity. A 50 percent increase in the number of POLARIS submarines scheduled to be in the force by fiscal 1965. The overall proposed buy of POLARIS submarines was increased from 29 to 41. The overall proposed buy of MINUTEMAN was increased from 600 to 950. The masters of the Kremlin are well aware of our military power, even ifthe extremists in this country are not. “+t WOULD HAVE KEPT YOU, (ITTY , BUT ONEN FULL-GROWW CATS ARE act pce Remnant antag e tt ETE It