The URL can be used to link to this page

278510 WHITE - CITY CLERK j+�"ti' �t PINK - FINANCE � ��V�: CANARY - DEPARTMENT COU�� _ �,/ BLUE - MAYOR G I T Y O F S A I N T PA U L File N O. Cou cil Res utio Presented By LEONARD W. LEVINE . � Referred To Committee: Date � Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the nuclear arms race saps the economic resources of our nation and threatens to bring our nation to the brink of a depression; and WHEREAS, a full-scale holocaust would kill hundreds of millions of people immediately, and might damage the ecosphere sufficiently to endanger the survival of those who weren't killed outright; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Paul could be completely destroyed by any type of nuclear war; and WHEREAS, any type of civil defense planning would not mitigate the consequences of nuclear war; so, therefore, be it RESOLVED, THAT THE City Council , on its own behalf and on behalf of the people of St. Paul , supports a mutual freeze by the United States and the Soviet Union on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons and missiles, and new aircraft and submarines designed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the freeze is only a first step toward bilatural , varifiable, nuclear disarmament. COUNC[LMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays � Hunt Levine In Favor Maddox � McMaho� showaiter __ Against BY — Tedesco �MI!lerl APR � �982 Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date — Certified Pa s b Council S reta BY By App d by ;1+lavor: te _ APR 'rJ �9HZ Approved by Mayor for $ubmission to Council . BY - – — BY ��llB��shE� AP r� 10 1982 : a78'S�a .,,,� CITY OF SAINT PAUL . GLTiwp��'L =.•` �;'��,,, OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 'o �; `;� •iii�iiijii << BUREAU OF RECORDS �� = 386 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 "'n��••°°'`` 612-298-4231 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR April 20, 1982 CBS Television News Department 51 W. 52nd St. New York, New York 10019 ATTENTION: Dan Rather Dear Mr. Rather: You reported during your April 19, 1982 evening news broadcast that Pittsburgh was the f irst major city in the United States to adopt a position supporting a freeze on nuclear armament. Enclosed for your information is a resolution supporting a nuclear armament freeze adopted by the St. Paul City Council on April 1, 1982. Very truly yours, ' O � Albert B. Olson City Clerk Enclosure sch �0 J/ / p,{/JjJ��p� \ 1 / /� }� /�✓ �/�/�/' ,'��i1� �./V'4V�.. w � `� � / 4/ �,/ /V � � l��i�V'i i � �.� �,.�r ^ ' ,� � � �/ ��..__R_. . ..._ II `�w(�_.'�.? �' '�4 �Wl. 1.��`��_ �.�v ry �.{i Mr. Ronald Reagan ��--- �._ �r, �: ��'��Y�'j ' Mr. George Bush The President `', � Office of the Vice President The White House � Old Executive Office Building Washington, DC 20500 Washington, DC 20501 (202) 456-1414 (202) 456-7123 Senator Dave Durenberger Rep. Bi11 Frenzel , District 3 Minnesota address: Minnesota address: 550 E. Butler Sq. 110 South 4th St. 100 N. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Minneapolis, MN 55403 (612) 725-2173 (612) 725-6111 or 1-800-752-4226 Capitol address: _ 1026 Longworth Office Bldg. Capitol address: . Washington, DC 20515 353 Russell Senate Office Bldg. (202) 225-2871 Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3244 Rep. Bruce F. Vento, District 4 Senator Rudy Boschwitz Minnesota address: Rm. 150 Mears Park Place Minnesota address: � 405 Sibley St. Suite 210, Bremer Bldg. St. Paul , MN 55101 419 No. Robert St. (612) 725-7724 St. Paul , MN 55101 . (612) 221-0904 or 1-800-E52-9771 Capitol address: 230 Cannon House Office Bldg. Capitol address: Washington, DC 20515 2107 Dirksen Office Bldg. (202) 225-6631 Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-5.641 Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, District 5 Rep. Arlen Erdahl , District 1 Minnesota Address: Rm. 166, 110 So. 4th St. Minnesota address: Minneapolis, MN 55401 Suite 200, 33 East Wentworth Ave. (612) 725-2081 W. St. Paul , MN 55118 (612) 725-7716 Capitol address: 426 Cannon House Office Bldg. Capitol address: Washington, DC 20515 1518 Longworth Office Bldg. (202) 225-4755 Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2271 Rep. Vin Weber, District 6 Rep. Thomas M. Hagedorn, District 2 Minnesota address: � 720 St. Germain St. Minnesota address: St. Cloud, MN 56301 2nd Floor, Downtown Mankato Mall (612) 252-7580 P.O. Box 3148 Mankato, MN 56001 Capitol address: (507) 837-8226 514 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 Capitol address: (202) 225-2331 2344 Rayburn Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2472 (OVER) r � • ��;:/v ' " Rep. Arlan Stan�eland, District 7 Minnesota address: 4th Floor, 403 Center Ave. Moorhead, MN 56560 (218) 233-8631 or 1-800-432-3770 Capitol address: 1519 Longworth Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2165 Rep. James L. Oberstar, District 8 Minnesota address: Rm. 231, Federal Building �uluth, MN 55802 (218) 727-7474 Capitol address: 2315 Rayburn Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-6211 C � �� ` S / U COMMITTEES: WASHINGTON OFFICE: EDUGATION AND LABOR 1518 LoncwowrH HOUf[O�/ICE Bu1LD�NG 202-225-2271 FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1ST DIfTRIC7,MINNEiOTA CONGRESSMAN ARLEN ERDAHL 7OI MA11pURETTE BANC BUILDING �� RocN[s7[�.M�Nrxso7� 55901 courrr�ES: "" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES so�_:se-z�as DAKOTA RICE � DoDGE sTEELE WASHI NGTON 3�E.Wc�rrwowrM Av[wc.RooM 200 FILLMORE WABASHA � D.C. 20515 GOODHUE WASMINGTON W[!T ST.PAYL,M�ttlifOTA SS118 HOUSTON WINONA � 612-725-7716 °�""STE° Apri 1 14, 1 g82 City Council City of St. Paul 386 City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Friends: Thank you for contacting me to request my support for a freeze in nuelear Weapons. I have asked the sponsors of H.J.Res. 434 to list my name as a cosponsor when Congress reconvenes. This resolu- tion calls for a mutual and verifiable freeze and reduction in nuclear weapons. H.J.Res. 434 and other freeze resolutions #�ave beea referred to the International Security and Scientific Affairs Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Hearinga on atrategic arms control began April 2nd and Will cor.�inue after the Easter reeeaa. It is likely new legislation will be �rritten Daaed on°theae hearings. I feel both a nuclear freeze and a reduction in the number of arms are necessary and I plan to aupport a resolution that includes both provisions. I have long supported multilateral negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear warheads held by all countries not �ust the United States and the Soviet Union. Multilateral discussions are key to the Kremlin agreeing to dismantle its arsenal because the Soviets perceive a real threat from missiles constructed by European powers and deployed in Western Europe. It is my belief that, in addition to this resolution, the Administration should encourage the Soviet Union to �oin with other countries in comprehensive nuclear reduction negotiations. This would be the most effective way in which the United States and the rest of the world could step away from the brink and prevent a nuclear holocaust. With kind regards, Sincerely, ARLEN ERDAHL r�ember of Congress AE/jhe � � . lst �— I_' (�� 2nd_ y— D �O � 3rd �—��-�1� � Adopted�_,�(� - �a Yeas Nays LEVINE MADDOX McMAHON �08��1 ' � 1 SHOWALTER TIDESCO / �9�� , WILSON PRESIDENT HUNT _ \ - � � �78' �/ 0 , ,� . COMMITTEES: WqgHINGTON OFFICE: EDUCATION AND LABOR iSIB LONGWORTM HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINfi 202-225-2271 FOREIGN AFFAIRS CONGRESSMAN ARLEN ERDAHL DI9TRICTOFFICE3: 15T DISTRIGT,MINNESOTA 704 MARqUETTE BAKK BUILDING courrries: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ROCMESTER.MINNESOTA ss9oi DAKOTA RICE � 507-288-2384 DOD6E STEELE FILLMORE WABASHA WASHINGTON� D.C. ZOS�� 33E.WEMwOrt7HAVENUE,ROOtit200 GOODHUE WASHINGTON . WEST ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55118 HOUSTON WINONA ,1 OLMSTED � ApY,l l �4� �98? 612-725-7716 City Council. City of St. Paul 386 City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Friends: Thank you for contacting me to request my support for a freeze in nuclear weapons. I have asked the sponsors of H.J.Res. 434 to list my name as a cosponsor when Congress reconvenes. This resolu- tion calls for a mutual and verifiable freeze and reduction in nuclear weapons. H.J.Res. �434 and other freeze resolutions have been referred to the International Security and Scientific Affairs Subcommittee of the House Forei�n Affairs Committee. Hearings on strategic arms control began April 2nd and will cor��inue after the Easter recess. It is likely new legislation will be written based on these hearings. I feel both a nuclear freeze and a reduction in the number of arms are necessary and I plan to support a resolution that includes both provisions. I have long supported multilateral negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear warheads held by all countries not just the United States and the Soviet Union. Multilateral discussions are key to the Kremlin agreeing to dismantle its arsenal because the Soviets perceive a real threat from missiles construeted by European powers and deployed in Western Europe. It is my belief that, in addition to this resolution, the Administration should encourage the Soviet Union to join with other countries in compreher.sive nuclear reduction negotiations. This would be the most effective way ir which the United States and the rest of the world could step away from the brink and prevent a nuclear holocaust. With kind regards, Sineerely, ARLEN ERDAHL Member of Congress AE/jhe • ' ,�';'�j"/�J �MHRTIN OLAV SABO 4P6 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINO r STN D18TRICT,MINNESOTA . WASHINIdTON,D.C. 20518 (202)225-4755 COM M ITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 462 FEDERAL COURTS BUILDIN6 � �IO SOUTH 4TH STREET SUBCOMMITTEES: � MINNEAPOLIB,MINNESOTA SS4OI HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT �or�gre�� of t�je �r�iteb �tate� AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES (812�849-5110 TRANSPORTATION � �ou�e of �.te�re�entatibe� ��j{ngtott,�.G�. 20515 �'/��, April 15, 19��CL' „ D v �_ ,� Mr. Albert Olson �,rrC��, �f�� Z City C lerk �r r�,�s�� n,,� City of St. Paul '��l,��,�,��C�r 3�6 City Ha11 St. Paul , Minnesota 551 02 Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for your message urging that the nuclear arms rac e bet we e n t he S ovi et U ni a7 a nd t he U ni ted S tat es be ended. I believe it would �reatly aid American security and the stability of the world for the United States and the Soviet Union to freeze their azrrerit �nuclear arserals. I fuliy support the goal of a mutual freeze to be followed by a mutual verifiable reducti� in nuclear weapons by ourselves, the Soviet Uni�, and all other natirns armed with nuclear weapons. For that reasa�, I have cosponsored H. J . Res. 433 which urges that the United States pursue the goal of a mutual freeze and reductim in n u cl ea r wea pon s. Since rel y, l.�' - � Mar ti n 0. S abo Menber of Congress MOS/pam THIS 3TATIONERY�PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITM RECYCLED FIBER8 i ' l . ' � ��/a �MHRTIN OLAV SABO 42B CANNON Hq/5E OFFICE BUILDIN6 r STN DISTRICT,MINNESOTA . �NNSHINGTON,D.C. 20515 (202)225-4755 COM M ITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 4BE FEDERAL Cd1RT8 BUILDING SUBCOMMITTEES: ' I�O SOUTN ATM STREET MINNEAPOLIB,MINNESOTA SS4O� HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES �or�gre�� of t�je �r�iteb �tate� �B�Z�949-5110 TRANSPORTATION � �uuge of �e�regentatibeg �as�j{�gtori,�.(�. 20515 fj��,0 April 15, 19��' „ C ��,�- �, Mr. Albert Olson ��C?�� '�,� �� City Clerk `'rr'�� `k'; M j/�� , City of St. Paul ��1/,�<f�• /CF 386 City Hal1 St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for your message urging that the nuclear ar ms r ac e bet we e n t he S ovi et U ni on a nd t he U ni ted S tat es be ended. I believe it would greatly aid American security and the stability of the world for the United States and the Soviet Union to freeze their currerit'nuclear arserals. I fully support the goal of a mutual freeze to be followed by a mutual v�erifiable reducticn in nuclear weapons by oursel�s, the Soviet Unian, and all other natirns armed with nuclear weapons. For that reas�, I have cosponsored H . J . Res. 433 which urges that the United States pursue the goal of a mutual freeze and reductirn in n u cl ea r wea pon s. S ince re 1 y, �-"1 l�' - �." Mar ti n 0. S abo Menber of Congress I�S/pam TMIS STATIONERY PRINTEO ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS i �� :::�-� v - � . ~ • JAMES L. OBERSTAR WASHINGTON OFFICE: 8rH D�57wicr,MINNESOTA 2351 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON,D.C. 20515 COMMIrrEES: (202)225-6211 PUBLIC WORKS AND �ot�gre�� ot t�je �t�iteb �tates 203 ANOKA COUNTY COURTHOUSE TRANSPORTATI ON �.�+ �.�+p}y} } e 325 EAST MAIN STREET CHAIRMAN: �r OUA4 O` �4�i LE.7�1[.i�`NI�I�L� ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 SUBCOMMITTEEON ECONOMIC (612) 421-8862 DEVELOPMENT },� /�► ��}��gLV��.�GL. 20515 CHISHOLM CITY HALL MERCHANT MARINE AND April 20, 19H2 316 LAKE STREET FISHERIES CHISHOIFi�A, M�i Esorq 55719 �18)y.Ti4-5761 231_��EDE�BUILDING DULU��MINNESOTA 55802 r�18) 727-74${ Mr. Albert B. Olson �--z; �; � City Clerk �''-` p ^* City of Saint Paul �":p � o 386 City Hall ;�� ::�. St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 c=� csi rn rv Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for your eloquent letter expressing your concern over the most critical foreign policy issue of our time: nuclear proliferation. The United States and the Soviet Union combined have nearly 20,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive force of over 11,000 megatons. By the year 1997, an estimated 60 nations will be capable of building nuclear weapons. This senseless build-up of nuclear weapons could lead to the death of all mankind and to the end of the earth as we know it. The call for nuclear freeze began in a grassroots movement which spread across the nation and has now captured the attention of Congress and the American people. Nuclear freeze is an excellent example of democracy in operation; the people of the United States are telling the President and Congress that they want the frightening and senseless nuclear build-up to end. President Reagan has recently expressed his opposition to nuclear freeze. The President's proposal regarding nuclear arms would allow the build-up of nuclear weapons to continue until our stockpile reaches a level the Adminis- tration believes is necessary to match the Soviet Union. This is an expensive, unreasonable and dangerous way to go about nuclear arms reductions. We must recognize that when we tip the nuclear balance in our favor, we force the other side to tip it back to a level acceptable to them. The result of the President's proposal will be the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons. I have cosponsored Congressional resolutions, including the Kennedy- Hatfield resolution, which call for the end to the testing of nuclear weapons and the freezing of production and deployment of those weapons by all nations at current levels. I believe this freeze offers the best and most effective way to begin reducing the world's nuclear arsenal. You can be sure that I will continue to support nuclear freeze and work within Congress to convince my colleagues that we must end the senseless nuclear build-up. I am enclosing a copy of my statement on the nuclear freeze made during the debate on the House Floor, March 30. , /� , � Uniced States oj America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 97 th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vn/. 128 , WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 30,,�1982 No. 34 We must demonstrate that,as a gov O Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker. the ernment, we understand that there is nuclear freeze movement has devel- no level oi nuciear weapons buildup oped as a spontaneous expression oi that will provide lasting security or en- deep and genuine concern by the during�deterence.� We must recognize America.n people in response to what that whenever we increase our nuclear all ot us reco8nize as a most serlous weapons stockpile to the point where, threat to the existence o1 mankind: it tips the balance oi poaer in our nucleax weapons proliferation. favor. we. by that very fact, force the The peoDle oi this country are con- other side Lo intensify its nuclear buil- cerried about the very survival not dup to checkmate the IInited States or only of America. but of t#�e human� Lo attempt to tip the balance in its ruce and are demanding action by our favor. The result is not a balance of GovernmenL not only tn re�strain the Dower b�t a balancc o1 terror—and an growth of nuclear weapons, but to extra.ordinarily costly one at that. stoP that growth altogether. � The world had an opportunity for an The concern over the growth of nu- era of peace with the strategic arms clear weapons, both U.S. weapons and limitation talks that gave us a work- Lhos� iu thp h n Q of for i¢n_�QyeTA- able means of not only limiting the ments, is real; it is deep; it cuts across ¢rowth oi nuclear weaponry but also the entire social and economfc spec- reducing stockpiles oi weapons already trum of our society and it springs from developed.Wtth SALT effectively side- a fear that the survival oi the human tracked, the nuclear arms race is on, r�ce is at stake, aBain wIth all !ts horrendous ftnanctal I have heard these fears expressed cost and social terror. in public town meetinBs, in sessions In thu,t context, the Congress, and with Sarmers, la.bor union member�, the American people deserve the kind business groups, high school and col- of Lhought-provoking,responsible, and lege students—people from all walks of �factual cUscussions of tYie nuclear issue life throughout my entire district over • — a period of many months. The people 6o which this scrles of snecill ordcrs who are sharing their fears with me I.oni�ht is devot,ed. We neccl common• are not specialists in the intracacies or tirnse und sensible prop�sals on whir,h technicallties oi nuclear arms control �� nntie arms lirniLltioti policir.s. Thc negotiations. They do understa,nd, Pn�i:nr.:►putis •r�tn��u:, fn a rcr.c:n6 r.di- however, Orie fundAmental principle �•'��'��. �ftcn:d snme mnch•ncc�ed, re- which is that unless the United 8ta.tes suun�sible, tliouKh6fu1 cunstdc�ra6ic,n of and the Soviet Union. the two princi- ii�e nuclexr freeze issue. Po[nting out pals in the nuclear a.rtns race, reduce �j��►� �he United Stat.es is ne�ither their respective nuclear arsenals, all "��'�l�lc�.s nor ditiarmcd." the editoriat countries oi the world are threatened. calls for straight t�ik rather thRn c.iauble talk abuut the nuclear frecie Out of the feas has grown the pro- i�sue. I commend this ciearly Wio�i�;ht- posal for a nuclear�freeze which has �,,,�. ��ria] to my culicuE;u�s a.nd �►sk taken hold as a grassroots spontane- ��iianimous cor+s�nt Lo includc� it at rus expression oi pecple telling the �I,iS point in the tt,ECr�rt�. President and his administration and In cr,nc:lusian, J h�:p�• t.h:�l, t,hru�ir,h the Congress that they want action i.�„� ��fui•mt!I.iun i,ruvicicd in t.i�rti�: :<,�rr- taken to end the relentless and sense- c•i;�i ur<.iers, t,oLh (;�ni;ress an<! t,he less bulldup of nuclear weapons. The Amer�ran peoplc, as v�ell as ucl�ni��ls- nuclear freeze movement is not, nor lr�tlon representatives, will be bettrr should it be seen as,a politically parti- informed ana more resolvad to act c!e- san issue. The fears about nuclear risivcly to s6op Llie nucicur arms race. wespons buildup STe expTessed by 170UfILF.7'AI.K AAOUT A NUCLF.AR FItF:F:2R Democrats and Republicans alike, by ln Minneso�n the cam;�n�t;n fur a nuctcu� people whose good eommonsense and frcc•r,r. tiwepl. uP frum Lhc �tr;a;S �oa4s into S011rid moral �udgment lead them t0 �;u• I,et;i:;l;�ture. 7'he lrcazc mnvcrnenL ls the conclusion that the only way to ,;r�u�c�rt�� similar momen��m In ochc� avoid worldwide destruetion is to give �.�ai�.c:c.lnu.nnd 6hi::munLh ib blew inl��Con- peace an honest chance through the ::�•�� wi�n u rc:��duLiun, :•ponsured bv t5o time-honored process oi diplomacy. - r��mbcrx,tur a"cumpletc hnl6 to 6h�nucle- :�r u•caponx racc."C�fmilar resolutto��In lea- Ii we expect Lhe 8ovlet Union to ;;,ia�,,,•ns. 1ncludG+a, b:inncsut,u�s,may so un• tAke SeTiously the dCSil'e of our Gov- i+��<cl by 6he rncer.c. Nor woulcl Prcxid�nt ernment for world peace,then we.have i:�•:�:rnn, much lc�x 1'restdent iircr.hnev, bc to demonstrate to them and to other �•��:Gr:iined in Lhc �;hort run it Con�rcvs Tk'tti0I1S 8 S1d'OIlg, efiective COm1T1iL- ::Iiuul�J yul�lur lhe Irecze r�:sulut.iun.Iiu1,In ment to the goals oi the nuclear freeze �r.� tu,�� run, 1tea�;un cun �ec�urc pubiic mOVemerit. opitiion only ut his polittcnl perll.Z'hc wiser criw:tic is lo csaminc 6he niovcrncuL'r roots, wc[�;h il:; merifs unJ rexp�,ud sen;ibly. 7'he adminutra6ion docs not yeL seem inclincd Lo d0 Rq, � „ • � tha6 furthcr uac would remaln limil,cd. F.i►r- licr In thc nucicxr a�:e, nullnnu could cun- ccivably consider nuclear war, even to tha point o[cxhawsting their ar�cnnls o[aLanic nnd hy�lmr.en bombx. ;irx�i��{ex wotild bc slr.�6lered.bul sume w��ulQ xurvlt•c.N�i mnrr.. !u�ys 8r.hc11.Aflrr coh::tUll�nt:u:oros qf scl�•n- LixLa, ltc concludcs Lhnt Lhc muusca of mu+lc• ar weatwns on hand are capnble of de,;lroy ing not only the superpow�rs, bul ilfc on car6h. Though many would a�tiuc 6hat, r:u• pc:rdoom.;day iu iiot u ccrl,ainly. Sci�ci! Most of the treez�;rs are amateurs. Lack• mal:ca a tellin¢point: If It ix at icu::t u�,o::si• ` Im� thQ ornota Wrcnbutnry of at.rntcplsta b»��Y.Indi[ferencc Is lntolcra�lc. ::i.�•np��d In hw;i�•u�•ws►r 61�curY. 6hey t,end I.0 Doublotalk fs rqttaily Intoternblc. 1'hc :H+�•:tk pluiuly.A Ilu:cluufi�n.uuu u!61��+inuvu• Rc1E:an adminli6rntion ws�a rlul�t lo polnt m�nl.'n uriqfnat�rs, �ald xlic wut►I,�:d ��xo�ne• out q�ctekiy the grim hypxrLtiy in ltrcih• ' lhin(� ordfnary people, t�ot Juat de[ense ex• ncv's rLntrmunt Ina�t wr�k on Inlcrrnudis�tc• nert,s, Could uu�lcrrt6and." A Minnesota� rnr,ee m;;x�ilcs. Co�r.:cl��ux of t�ublic rnlul.lunr; fn�nier said aomethlnK ordinary peoplo ' uu:a:IbltiLlr.�. Lhr. S�,vl�•6 i��o►der iu�nuunro�i COUId undcrstand: "Wr're spcnding all that Lhc "fmc•r.in�;" of d��luymr.nLx uf tiurh mlw n►oncy (on dete�ucl and we're not festing 's11r:K,harangucd lhe WevL tor pinnuln�lu clo nny moro securo." I.cadors ot ma�or reslb In the future what tY�� Sovtcts have }uxt tciou» organixs6lor�n huve been almllarly cumpleled, and thrpntencd to pu� mLa�iles ��n•u�rl nt. ruula�•�,r��p �tpre�� K�MtlurtoaUm�• nenr bbe Un16ed SLnLea If NATQ cnrrics ouL rum �VnxhlmcLOn �liaL ru�alcar wes�Uonx �GY u►nn. But lf thn�dminls�rntlon was rl�hl. ; ml::hl hr: ��n��Iul In f11:hlInK a war It such iu nrincfple tu replY.16 L':we egre��;i�>uxly mis- i :�r:nx�+�il 6o di:6er ono. lca�ling nnswcr.►. WI�Y 61�e Conc,�srn now? The RCUKaD Ad• °I,cYs considrr zome fnr.ls," the nrrsid�;nt � enlnis6raWon ev[dently ChlnkK bhab irecr.era. �nid.He currr•r,tly d��sc�•ib�•cl ti�c:iovfets'��•w infcclyd Ly u Wext F.uro�x:an disnrmamFn6 misxllea-3Q0 m�bll�s Inuncherx, I.Nrce wur- vlrus, full 6o recul�tdr.� the danuerx ut what h�.n�,y n��,e. rnnrsr (tr��ut ��nauRh tu rv�nr�h U��rY nAtocnl.e. In Oklnii��ma laa6 w��ek, Lh� unywl�cr� in Weslern P:i�r�►„�� frun� 4�� ►h��sl�lcnl.r��vr.rU:d 6n Lhe 1•kn��w-tnurr.•li�tu�• t3nvlCt U�tlon.Then Iicn�nn drew n coi�trc��sl,: ynu.lcr�uw 6Leta:. Iln. vnid LhaL pru��{c wt�o "NATO hau 2Cr0 lnnd•basCo ml:tslles wUicit ' dis:igrre wtLl► 1►!x Comtntl.ti�rut tu u �ulUl.ary �n tdt the U.S.f3.22." ' bullduU "duu't ha��e 6he intormatlon tliat The misdirection In t�hn6 superflc(n.l1y nC- �;uex w1�.tt hnvi�;�; W�i� Job." But spmc �vhu curat,�stntr.mcnt Ix axi��;o�nr.lt falis Lu nolc h:�v�•had Litr tiumu l�tiformnl.fon�liiuk diffcr• ' 4UU �uUmnrinv-carrlcd misrUcx i�xplicily wl• enUY: for ltwluiicv, furnicr Vl�:c Yrasidunt l��,ed l� NATO tor me�e 1,b��n n dacnde. Mondule h�s su:ci that n frc��e �vc.tiQd be a That thcy arc not Innd•bnved ix h:►rdly lhc r,��Hl IJrn. Ana onc rr,:u;on :► IuL ul ueoglc the determtnln� factor.The same ls true ot o�rr. ex{�re.c:;iurt x��r.h 1.{�r�ut;hts now, wi1.h un nuclear wcapons cnrried by alr•<where tl�e �u•w•��cy s�runuer f.lis�n In yc:a��x pati6, is Lha6 Suvlets have an advantng�). Nor docs R��u• i in•nu��lr.;►r wurl�l lu�ti cl�um:��l, gan's aLaLement nccount for �rnnch land• '�'I�u clount;u Ix Jcvc:ribe� vlviUly in Lt�rra bused intermeUtate•rnngu mtaxfles—perhapx r��c�:nl 1•Tew Yurk�r inuga•r.in� arUclu� by bccause whllc Frnnce la a NATO member,IL J�nali�nn Schell. Tlioudh of necdlessly It no� pnrl of lho InLunrated mUltary com• nuinbinr lrn�ctli, they contaln hard keruels mnnd. Rut lhc t��vl�dx unct�•rxl.nnris►bly 0( IOgIC.SCII@ll ili•gues that the alieer qua.zW co�u�6 I�renr.l� mltCtUrn Ih Lh�•IY I.ully uf n�i• t� of auclear weapons now avallsble hae iwxhtg torccu.AccOrdluK 1.0 lhc Iut,crnn6lun- trai�aformed Llteir 6hreat: thRt if any wero al Inatitutc ot StraLcgtc �tudtes, a pHvs►1,e hurled at an enem)•, there fs ilttle chance rescarch orRantzatton, Lhe balance of ttucle- ��` - --- nr torcea In Europe Is around 2,000 aar- heads!n the Fast, 1,200!n the West;nnd In InLercontlnental weaponr�, 9,000 tor lhc Ualted 3tatea,7,000 tor the Sovlo�Vn1on. But Reagan speake ot tha need to"resl.ore eur ahlltbr t �1 tund nlrrh��lro�:• nu thn�� h thc Unl6od �ta��s atoori hclpic.aa and d�x- urmecl. Wilh �hal kt��d uf duuble6alk, t►nd 6hc klnd hcard r�lxo from ISr«hnev, no wonder s lot of ne�pie urc Lr.11ing govcrn• ments 6o atop buildfuK r�iir,•lulr weapons. Arms control 1� rnore cumplicnted lban lhe [rcc��;rs susgest. F3ut lhul suU1�:c:1 nnd lhuse , t,rp6ex�ers dc.xerve morrt nt.lentfon nnd ri.rnt�sliU�r I.nik 6Nnn 61u: It�•sif:an udinU�iti;.r:�• Uun lis.x ufl�rwl.• � � o? ��"�/b . � � 's?I C�Yf eD .�if af es ,�ie�af¢ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 June 18, 1982 e,.��f/ ��! Mr. Albert B. Olson T�. �� 386 City Hall �s"j,c� �/f St. Paul, Minne sota 5510 2 �„�`.��..s 5,,��,�' Dear Albert: '�i,y��n�c �� F Thank you fcr contacting my office concerning nuclear arms control. I share your abhorrence of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction. We face no graver problem than the control, reducticn and eventual elimination of these weapons, which threaten our very exister.ce as a species. Nuclear weapons can serve onE purpose only: the deterrence of attack by other nuclear weapons. The actual use of nuclear weapons would mean only that the living would envy the dead. Therefore, loose talk about a ��limited�� nuclear war is both foclish and dan gerous. And an excessi ve fascination with ever larger stockpiles of nuclear arms is at best a waste of resources and at worst a very dangerous step. That�s why I have been a critic of the MX missile ever since coming to the Senate. It�s why I wrote to President Reagan in September, 1981 , urging him to cancel plans for this weapon. It� s why I authored an exhaustive study of our defense policy last February, concluding that we were dangerously reliant upon nuclear weapons and calling for actual reductions in the stockpiles of nuclear arms. It�s why I joined with Senators Dodd, Eagleton, Kassebaum and Mathias in introducing a resolution aimed at undertaking immediate negotiations for control and reduction of arms. And it�s why I was one of only two members of Congress asked to address the national closing ceremonies for Ground Zero Week. On April 25, a largE crowd gathered in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House, for a candlelight vigil. Senator Gary Hart and I joined Roger Molander, Executive Director of Ground Zero, in speaking to these concerned and involved Americans about the nuclear arms race. Similar demonstrations and vigils �ccurred around the country, capping a week of exhibitions, seminars and discussions. This was an enormously significant bEnchmark in our history, and it occurred because the public -- not just politicians or def ense experts -- became involved in this issue, whether through the freeze campaign, Ground Zero, or any of the many other vehicles. c�1 `i �'..�� Senator Dave D r n u e er er Remarks of ' Senator Dave Durenberger °� ,1�r��.-`�/�` Mr. Albert B. Olson June 18, 1982 Page 2 Proposals for a freeze on nuclear weapons deserve encouragement and close e xamination, and not the kind of early derision that came from the Secretary of State. Zhe chief question raised, of course, centers on whether it is better to freeze or to press actively for rEductions, to ratify the situation or to remedy it. A second question concerns the imFact within the NATO alliance, which has formally committed itself to a ��two track�� policy concerning the Soviet I, SS-20 missile. The f irst track involves �ein substitute lon 9 PrEPared to I g-range theater nuclear weapons -- on a one-for-one basis -- for current weapons, with a maximum number of 572. Zhe second track involves pressing for as comprehensive an arms control agreement as possible in order to avoid having to deploy even o�e of these new weapons. Interestingly, it was the Europeans who first requested that this ��two track�� approach be adopted. Just as important, European political leaders have unanimously rejected the freeze approach, prefering the ��zero cption�� -- a plan �ased on reductions. It is signif icant that people who are deeply ccncerned about scne of the irresponsible statements which have occasionally emanated fron this ccuntry nonetheless prefer reductions to a freeze. So do 2. But the freeze ca�paign is a crucial instrument in the quest for arms ccntrol. It dramatizes and expresses clearly the concern which most An�ericans feel about the arms race, and it bolsters the efforts of those who feel -- as I do -- that there are simp ly far too many nuclear weapons in the world to serve any rational pur�ose. I�ve Enclosed a copy of my re�arks at the Ground Zero rally. I �ope you�ll take a moment to r ead them. Again, thank you fcr contacting my office. Please stay in touch. Sin rely, i Dav Durenberger � United States Senator I DD/seo Enclosure -2- Psychic numbing is real , and it is dangerous . It permits governments to undertake risks that sensible people would not ordinarily undertake . Dictators have understood this for years . As Joseph Stalin once remarked, "one death is a tragedy; a thousand deaths is a statistic. " The events of Ground Zero week may well be the most signif- icant of our lifetime . For the first time in thirty-seven years , an entire public has begun to think about and debate a subject which is supremely distasteful but supremely real and supremely threatening. The American people have begun to reassert themselves as citizens . They have begun to insist that our policies be shaped by all people . An educated, informed and involved public is a fundamental requisite of sound policy. Each of you who has taken part in Ground Zero Week should be proud of the role you have played in awakening our country to the most critical issue we face - - the control of nuclear arms . This is not a partisan issue ; an in- coming warhead will not distinguish between liberals and conserv- atives , Republicans and Democrats , Midwesterners and Southerners . Nor is it simply a technicalissue . The exact form which our ultimate policy takes - - whether a freeze , a reduction, a ban on flight-testing, or some other posture - - is , in the final analysis , less important that the fact that our policy will be shaped by an informed and involved public . Years from now, we well look back on the events of this week as a major watershed in our history. Thanks to the people of Ground Zero and to all the other organizations and movements which have been so active this week, we have attained a critical mass of public opinion. But this is not the time to take a rest ; it is time to continue the work of eduction and debate . I look forward to that debate, and to a time when we have ultimately banished weapons of mass destruction from this earth. For if we do not suc- ceed in banishing them, they will surely banish us . Thank you. =- � � � s� � � , � I. BILS.FRENZEL MINNESOTA OFPICE; TNIRD DIBTRICT.MINNE80TA MAYBETX CHRISTENSEN Roon�S45 WABXW6TON OFFIC6: B�PO PENN AVENU6 ShciH lO2B LONGWORTM BUIWIN6 BLOOMIN6TON,MINNE80TA SS�{$I Zo2_z�28�, �o�gre�� of t�je �r�iteb �ta�e� 612_881_46� �ouge of �e�regetttatibe�c �fngton,�.QC. 20515 September 10, 1982 Mr. Albert B. Olson City Clerk City of St. Paul 386 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mr. Olson: Because of your interest in the nuclear freeze proposal, I thought you might be interested in a report on recent House action. On August 5 the House narrowly defeated the freeze resolution, H.J. Res. 521 , by a vote of 204 to 202. I n its place the House adopted the Broomfield Substitute, which calls for a freeze at substantially reduced levels rather than a freeze before reductions. I voted for the Broomfield Substitute rather than the freeze resolution. I felt it was important not to undercut the American position at the START talks in Geneva. Moreover, I was afraid that a freeze at current levels, even if it could be verified, would take much of the pressure off the Soviets to negotiate reductions. I have enclosed my floor statement to explain my reasons for voting the way I did. I appreciate your interest in this important issue. Yours very truly, �� Bill Frenzel Member of Congress BF:bj Enclosure TH18 BTATIONERY PRINTED OM PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBER$ , A No. 10�---Part o - � �7�� . ,� : �-,� � u�«a s��e� bf America , PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 97 th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vo� 128 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1982 No. 106—Part 11 � o l�e resent�tive�c , .�o�� H 5318 I ( CALLINGti FOR A�MOTQAL• AND � �TERIFL43LE 'FREEZE'.ON' AND � RIDUCT'YONS IN•;;, NIIGZEAR � WEAPONS�AND FOR•l,PPROVAI, OF THE SA�,T II AC3REEMENT— I i • Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, Y Nonctheless, I do not think that the ot our dcployin� thc MX, B-1, and.D- intend Lo votc todny tor the Broom• �est way Lo do th(s !s by Houscs en-' b, Lho new Trind. I fcur thut it wc tleld substltute to the Zablocki nuclenr ��•sement of a policy prescrlption, the nccent W�e Ireer.c ns the first st�p !n [recTC resolu6ion. nucicar frecr.e yro��osal, wl�ich in�y Lhe START t:►lks. �ve may �eL no fur• The whole arms control debnLc h:►s not be the best route to arms reduc- ther because 6tic restil pressure on �he escalated into a prime national issue in tion. Sovicts to reducc u•ill ha��e bcen re• recent monlhs. AmerlCans all across Many poten6ial problcros with Lhc moved. Thc hi�;h risk aspcct of thc Ltie country are becomiti(; morc �ncl �J.�e•r.c proposll hlvc Ueen dcUated freczc is that thcrr !s littic Incentl��e more aware of tl�e awesome destruc- ��.� ii� Wuy.l�inti6on nnd arouud 6hc �o take thc n;:cc:::;ary sccond stcp, Live powcr contaicicd i�i Lhe Unfled �,ounLi•y Ip reccnL wccks. In any I.ype which ls arms rccluctlons. Perhaps Stales and Sovir.6 nucicrtr arsennts. of arms control, the vcriticutlon issue that is why Prc:Siclent IIrezltnev has lhe freeze proposa�l has become a ra1- �y �i•ucial. Many experts Uelicvc that it apparcntly endorsed lhc trcrte pro- lyinG polnt for those who want to put i��,�Y be fmpossiblc lo nego6(at,e a coni• poss►1. :� tilou to ttu dnii�crs mx�o<:iated wi61t an uncontrolled arms race. ulc6cly vcrifiablc frecic on ull pliases I had bcen onc of thc early Cospon- I have tong bcen n proponenf, of o[ Lhe arms racc, cspeci:►lly on 6he sors of Represent,nth�c 'Lns�ocxi's arms control, and I yearn for subsCan- !�esting and production of new devices. ori�;inat arms control resolutlon <H.J. tial reduction of nuclear a•eapons. But The verification test means that nei- Res. 443), a�hich w•as subsequently I think the frccze is not Lhc besl way ��er iree�e nor redac�ions �vill come amended by his commtttee to add lan- to achicvc lrms conl,rol. �oon. Yn fuc6, soutc sltpnOrtCi's of Lhc Guagc callin�; for lpnroval of SALT II Onc of thc princip:►1 mo6;vltions oi frc:ezc t�ropa5al have urget] me to vuLc and endorstne thc frecze. I felt that 6hc Irccze cuovcmcnt scems ta havc tor it on t,hc grounds that iL docs no Lhc origin�l resolution, parts ot whlch bee�� a� serious concern about the ad• Y11rin because we will never be able t,o retnain 1n Housc Jolnt Rcsolution b21, minist,rntion's commitmen6 to urms negotiute one anyway, Thut relson wus a sensible approach Lo a Complex con6roi. The e1►9y rl�e6oric of 6he ad- ll�uuld not be soou enough for unyone Problem. I do not Lhlnk the Hroom- ministration d(d not hclp. A yeAr a6o licrc. field substitu�c is perfect. But because �ve heard talk of linking arms cont►•ol My main worry, thou�h, is tl�at ot its upAroach of endorsing the the tio Soviet benavior in o�ller areas and "'��se supperL a: a r.c:elcar ;:�eze, frame�vork c�f tlie ST_RR,'T talkc wtr,�. of finishing ttic job of rebutldini; our «'het,her or not implemented, could out the encumbrance oi a freeze d�rfc►�se capnbilitles before r,c��r,L CO11f��Se ot�r n.im�; nnd hinder the pur• betore reductions.I shall voto for it. dotvn to scrlous negot1161ons. n�'�c ot tl�c STAtt't' �alks—rcul nrms I reBret 62ifs body coWd not have Fortunitcly, Lhe President's posiLion 1•eductions, avoided tlte conirontAtion bCtween �cems to have shifLed. Zu liis May J Wc havc not bcen stancling sCill. House JoinL Resolutlon b21—ireezo. L•'ureka Collegc speech he rea�ffirmecl +�onctheless, the Soviets have been de• then cut—and Lhe Broomfletd smend- his cammitment Lo decp reduc6ions, ��O��n� nr�� s��stems o��er thc last ment—cut,then frec2e.People On both c;tlling [or n onc-Lhird reduction in Lhc �ouptc dc�lues 1t a muclt f,lster rate s(des want arms contml. atld that tac6 number of �vanc�acls. Thc START ��'�lil `�•c hnve bcc►�. As n result, we should have been the Centerplece of talks suUsequcntly commenced June ��iti•`' plznn�d to modernize the Ltvo this resolution. ^� in Genrvl. IL is my belicf t.hat 6I�e t�'F�� ot our Triad cICBM's and bomb- Many American would have dltflCUl• f't�reka specci� r�presents Lhe Cruc ad• �`�'s� ��1OS� sur�:��1Ui]it,y is tecomin� ty delermintng why the two versions :ninisLraLion nolicy. 6hrclLCt�ed, as n-cil as to devclop a new are in conflict. Since Lhe negotiatlons '1'itC ir�C%C cl,npai�n m1y be respon- �nissilc for our T*ident submarines. muy well be � Onc s6Cp, rather than a :.it�lc for encourar.inr. Ilic Presid��nl. to I ��stion �.�•h��LY�er i:aw, when these Lwo sLep exercise, the 6wo bas1C posi- tt�a);c t1�c S'i'A[t'1' inilial.(vc'S W11C(1 l�c sv��`'ms 1rc clovc co bcinrc devcloped, is 6ions may be oven closof LhaT1 the pra ciid. OI coui•se, sntne yucstions still t•l�c bcs6 6icnc tor us to call tor a trecze. ponents Suspect. In a.ny Cas9. Lhe Sucr i•emain about tlic administration posi- I �o not tnean to sug�est that the So- cess of our negottations wlll be deter- �i�il i�t the START talks atid flbout �'�ets may not also deploy new systems. mined at Lhe bargaini� tsble. rsther oui• ticilliiioness to toreso some cle- �ut on b:�lance we have more things Lhan by nonbinding House resolutions. t�ienGs of thc nianned strategic mod• coming doam the pipe than Lhey do. If the negotlations proceed Doorly,ii ^rnizatio�i program. Thcrefore, it is We secm to be most worried about the our n�gOtiators perform bAdly. tliere �.�•Iiolly appropriate for us to remind present Soviet advantage in hard wui pe cune for c:r�ticism.For now.tue t1�e President of ot�r deep concern tar�et capable missiles. They seem to PresidenVs a[ms to reduce nuclear 1ho��t our arms control policy. be most �vorried about the posslbility arms ought Lo be encoura�ed.� A � � i . � �;� ��;f�. �BRUG�E F.VENTO HOUSE COMMfTTEE ON 4tr�D�srn�er,M��esOTA BANKING,FINANCE AND � URBAN AFFAIRS 290 Gwrrori House OFFlCS�aotrx� WASMIN6TON,D.C. 20515 �ot�gre�� of t�je ��iteb �tate� HOUSE COMMITTEE ON (202)225-663f INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS DISTRICT OFFIC6: '�i ouge of �.te�regetttatibe� HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE RooM 150 ON AGING MBARB PARK PU10E ��jittgtott � � 20515 40S SIBLEY STREET ! • • 8�n+r P�u�,Mu+wesor� 55101 (6�a��25a�za April 26, 1982 � �' -=+ � U�� a --i� -�:,,�' ..,w � Mr. Albert B. Olson 4r� „ � City Clerk ��-� � d City of St. Paul 386 City Hall �� St. Paul, MN 55102 ' �, � m Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for sharing with my office your concerns on the nuclear arms race. Under the current Administration, little has been done to reduce international tensions or address arms reductions in a meaningful , manner. In fact, at the very best, the Reagan Administration has sent out conflicting signals of nuclear armament and nuclear war. While a proposal for nuclear arms limitation has been made, this Administration raises the possibility of a "limited" nuclear exchange and of a nuclear "warning shot". In addition, the record funding level for defense serves only to accelerate the arms race. It is clear that a significant portion of the American people and others are concerned about the arms race and our future. An alternative to the current American-Soviet policies is essential. Such an alternative has been introduced in Congress. H.J. Res. 433 and 434 call for a mutual and verifiable freeze and reduction in nuclear weapons. I have cosponsored these proposals. I believe that they are responsible proposals which, if pursued, could maintain our defense needs while achieving a meaningful reduction in U.S.-USSR stockpiles. Most importantly, this is not a unilateral action as some have intimated. It is essential that we also look at this Administration's defense budget. Acting under the faulty premise that the expenditures of ever increasing funds will guarantee a strong defense, the Administration is proposing another 20 percent increase in defense-related expenditures for next year. Rather than emphasizing actual defense readiness, the President's budget displays a propensity to budget busting, exotic equipment of marginal defense value. It is important that Congress review this budget and determine priorities. The threat of a nuclear conflict persists as the greatest threat facing America and the rest of the world today. The resolutions which I have cosponsored, are an important step to address this problem. r Sin y, �ruce F. Vento � Member of Congress THIS STATIONERY �RINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYGLED FIBERS • s'.� _ � l�� .r: . �RUCE F.�lENTO HousE coMn�trrEE oN 4r►i D�srw�cr,1�.7tu�esOiA BANKING,FINANCE AND URBAN AFFAIRS 230 CANNON HWSE OFFICE BUILDIN6 WASHIN[iTON,D.C. YOS1S �or�gre�� of t�je ��iteb �tate� HOUSE COMMI7TEE ON (202)225-6631 INT��C}�,�qND INSULAR AFFAIRS CV DisRoor�Ot50CE. �+ ouge af �.te�re�etttatibe� ��„� �� HopsE9��c-��MMITTEE r^� ��.� s +sr t M�es PwreK P�wcE (��p'�j��fY�� z0515 405 SIBLEY STREET �-�•-y �� f • ^ ^�7"J l'+, •�-~j � r^�Vti SAlrrr Pwu�.,MINNCSOrA 55101 _..� �y 1�r ce�2»zsa�xa May 6, 1982 ;',�:;i'_. ��s!,'tir:. Mr. Albert B. Olson City Clerk City of St. Paul 386 City Hall St. Pau1, 1�1 55102 Dear Mr. Olson: I am writing to you because of your concern regarding defense spending and the escalation of nuclear arms. The Senate is currently considering the 1983 Department of Defense authorization, S. 2248. This bill would authorize over $180 billion for defense. I am most concerned about this proposal. S. 2248 operates under the wrong assumption that we can solve our defense needs by pouring more and more money into the Department of Defense and by stockpiling conventional, nuclear and chemical weapons. This approach can only exacerbate the escalating nuclear arms race and does not heed the growing demand by Americans for a mutual nuclear arms freeze. The Senate bill does not control cost overruns or wasteful spending. This bill does not prov_ide the scrutiny needed to differentiate between essential programs and inefficient projects such as the F/A-18 aircraft. To make matters worse, the Senate is considering the Department of Defense authorization before any agreement is r.eached on our budget. In effect, the Senate is placing defense spending above our national economy. Rather than considering defense within the context of reducing our growing federal deficit, the Senate Armed Services Committee is circumventing the budget process by considering this bill in a vacuum. We must provide adequate time to the Congressional Budget Committees to develop the framework to determine national priorities. A strong defense is dependent upon a strong economy. We cannot pour money into defense while ignoring our domestic economy, the closing of industries and the lack of trained workers. A motion will be offered in the Senate to recommit S. 2248. Such a motion will give Congress the opportunity to act on the budget and to rationally consider Department of Defense spending within our budget. I have written to Senators Durenberger and Boschwitz to urge that they support this motion. The Department of Defense should certainly not be untouchable. We must hold those programs up to careful scrutiny to eliminate waste and encourage a DOD budget that will create a positive environment for SALT negotiation and agreement. Sinc rely, ce F. ento Member of Congress THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBER3 � r . * °° � �� ° �� s � �� °� � � a � . � � �: �. � �: � 0 � � � �� o � � �«� � � O �.. � ... �- o �- � � � � � � �' �� .� .� � --_ s � � s� �� - � � ��:.� .gm � �~ g �m � � � � � � s. � s.. m. � � �, m �. �• � � m � � �' � ' � x � � s m �. m � ^.,� �. g �.� a m C� � � s. � ►� �'•�g �*�"� �' d ��v � � � �c� o �: m �► � m E � � � � � � � �' �rp, � � g �c �. £ � �►� � � o, � � o a�r � °. r�vT' � � �' �, � �o � � � � � � � � � � ,r"� �.c� � � x . m � r. � � � R � � c� � �'� � �� a. mm � � � FpS � g •�rs .o " �� m -+ o� m � n.. � m � o � o � �•-� � o�,a � m a. � �. r < � m a. p' O - �`'�e � � o m R 1 a. o � w � $� � ° � � �-�°s ar o o �• f,' �a o�a �� a.�� . l � � • �; M � • � � �� 9 �. $ x ^ °< � g m ��° 'o "� � �� m �� °- �-� �.� � �,. �.. 5 _.�-a � �� °° "'r' � sb � a. o ° o R m m m� � m � .`e � � .°. �o �' ee ., S� "'o m � o °° � °'c ��-S'�' �- �a � � mr. � m �.m �. -�'x ��•, � „ �°� mw�' � � m - m �'. �•o m ^ �'+ m r, m g �' � o, �o m m � m C s m .� • '�d � a�Y'is° � �damc-�� `� ? G% a-m �-o ° � � ` ✓ � �e°°�o m � $, •t � $.oo m�.� a �^.r. S -•,'� � X � co O�� . �� 't'' �� e+ �R �.� ��• Tl �^ � m � ."+ � . �� o p� � � �.�� m m C'Sp' � 5' v 1 � e`+ C A� e► ¢`� .`3 � A� �t� n �;�O • �� 0 � OG A «+a � � �'7 C � o m •T`° ' Wa-' � � . .�m. ms��, � mm «� oo $ ts m z � o ' � o � � m (xp'�eK3mm� mm� c'. pp [��m (1 � �� . R �,�,�, � .^ ^� � R O R m O �b � !O � � , � m G �� a�'► � "1 M � � � n'y 0 � � � ° � 0 m � mm �� " �m a� ��+ �•� �� m � �' �. � mS �o� "�°D ��e o�x' � ,�°: �f �] �:,� a�►r' " 9e � m � C �; d� m �-3� 75 � ` mR _ � �,� �� -�� .� � � � �m S � a-��.ow� . „�'f e � � • ►'�'� OC M � �� '�'� m � � R aC a'K � • m m � � C O �� !► � � � � �� n w� m � O � y� � K �y � � � A «�� ..� a`► � � '�e'► ��..�' " 0 m m �c�m m r��0 �w� � �� M� e�� m ��. � � r� 'G� A� � � �.Q. . � Q..m ��3 � .�j � i .�/� O. '""'m• „�,��'�' �� n �" ��e .F��.�D �+ b"'n `J � p �' � ��3 00 �: m �ti ��'m � n �. e+ �� L►,� - � `� Z' m n �.O . � �° � m «�i m m m � m m �-�i ►n '.3 ,�,� ro�p CA m R � s � � � � O �'G.m � `•� m. � O° .m,.ap�o "�+� m ' � '� � a.� �� m� m � m' � �'-� n' � �� . A m � R m � �A �� .m. � � ��m¢� � �� . e o °Q o �. �,- ►�3��tr$ �,w a, �. �=e�-o�. S m m � � °� m � ��• �°�• � � �'. -��. � � �' �. m m ° �� ` °c �m � � m °� ° ° � � � � i O .rmi m '! S � i+.",' D C C C� .« ' -`� — �: � z 7 �s�o THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June �4, 1982 Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for sending President Reagan the resolution adopted by your Council. Your courtesy in bringing this statement of views to his attention is appreciated, and you may be sure that it has been fully noted. With best wishes to you and the members of your Couneil, Sincerely, � i � , ' Anne Higgins ; Special Assistant to the President • and Direetor of Correspondenee I I i ; Mr. Albert B. Olson City Clerk ' 386 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 , � BRUCE F.VENTO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 4TM D�s7[M�r,M�rm[sOT� BANKING.FINANCE AND URBAN AFFAIRS 290 CANNON HOUSE OFFlCfi B{11{,pINO WA6HINGTON,D.C. 20515 �o�g�e�� of t�je ��fteb �tate� �NTER�ORSAND NSULAR AFFAIRS (202)225-6631 D�srR�crOvFlee: �ou�e of �e�re�erttatibeg HOUSESELECTCOMMITTEE Root,�150 ON AGING M�RS P�wc Puee �fri��.�. 20515 40S S18L4Y$TREET S�Wr P�u�,MnaiesorA SS101 �� (B1TJ 725-7724 � a ? k��, August 19, 1982 Mr. Albert B. Olson City Clerk City of St. Paul 386 City Hall St. Paul, I�T 55102 Dear Mr. Olson: Knowing of your concerns about the escalated nuclear arms race and the delay in arms reduction negotiations, I thought you would be interested in the House debate on the nuclear freeze resolution. The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved H. J. Res. 521, which I cosponsored. This resolution called for a mutual and verifiable freeze to be followed by arms reductions by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. When H. J. Res. 521 was considered by the full House, a substitute resolution, supported by President Reagan, was offered. This substi- tute, the Broomfield amendment, calls for a nuclear freeze at equal and substantially reduced levels of nuclear arms. I opposed the Broomfield amendment. This substitute is not in any sense a freeze on the arms race. Rather it ratifies current Adminis- tration policies to escalate the production of our nuclear arsenal before entering into meaningful discussion with the Soviet Union. Such a policy is shortsighted. Increasing our nuclear weapons stock- pile does not add to our security. Indeed, if anything, this policy rushes us further to the precipice of a nuclear holocaust. Unfortunately, the nuclear freeze resolution was defeated by two votes and the Broomfield substitute was adopted. The defeat of H. J. Res. 521 is a missed opportunity for Congress and our country to speak out against the insanities of nuclear arms buildups and proliferation. However, we cannot view this vote as a final rejection of a rational defense policy. We must continue to press forward for the passage and implementaion of a mutual verifiable nuclear freeze. We must push the current Administration to change its nuclear policies. Peace is not attained by a cavalier attitude towards the threat of nuclear war and the use of nuclear weapons. Yet such a cavalier attitude is the hallmark of the current Administration. The record is replete with Administration discussion of "first strike capabilities," THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS Page 2 a "winnable" nuclear war and "limited" use of nuclear weapons. No progress is being made on meaning arms reduction negotiations and the problem of nuclear proliferation is not being addressed. Obviously, the ultimate passage of a nuclear freeze resolution is only a first step. But it is a most meaningful step in reducing the threat to our world. I will continue to work for its adoption. Warm regards. Since 1 , Bruce F. Vento Member of Congress BFV/cm , � • `� � . _ � � No. 106—Part II _ � � � . Uniced Staces th oj America PROCEEDINGS AND-DEBATES OF THE 97 _ _CONGR$SS, SECOND SESSION Vel. I28 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1982 ri'o. ]06—Part I/ � �o�se o .�e �es�ntc�tives � Mr.VENTO.Mr.Chairman,I rlse in Today we have an opportunity to opposition to the Broomfield substi- put in place an important cornerstone tute. This measure is far inferior to by support of the verifiable nuclear the committee measure which it at- freeze embraced by the committee � tempts Lo displace. measure. _ This amendment is caught up in Lhe This will be an important action, a logic of building more weapons, more milestone in moving forward to ex- nuclear missiles, and bombs when press the feelings that have been ex- • indeed the numbers held by both the pressed across this country, that II.S. ma�or powers are far in excess of any policy should be to stop the uncontrol- reasonable defense need. lable growth of nuclear weapons in the � • Rather than capitalize on the SALT hands of the superpowers. II Agreement, admittedly a nonrati- Stop and freeze these weapons while fied treaty. but very importa.ntly a we move forward with further reduc- treaty which both the Soviets and the tions. - IInited States observe today, this T'he Broomfield amendment is an Broomfield amendment superimposes u�iustified leap in faith; it is designed the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. to capture support and concern for re- Mr. Chairman I have no ob,iection to duction of nuclear weapons while the continue seeking reductions in nucleaL present growth continues to go for- arms with the Soviets through ward in full bloom.That is simply not START or other initiatives but there acceptable to those of us who recog- is a great difference between a treaty nize the necessity of inea.ningful prog- such as the SALT II Treaty and talks, ress on this issue. however much they may be blown up The Broomfield substitute 1s at the by advocates. very least misleading, if not counter- 'Most Mersbers are well aware of the productive. Mr. Chairman, we do not concerns and imperfections in the need the Broomfield resolution or SALT II �Yeaty and for that matter amendment. This is the present policy a�ith past treaties addressing this most under which we have come to the un- important concern of nuclear weapons, satisfactory conclusion that exists but all of these efforts represent today—the Broomfield substitute is benchmarks from which we proceed chuck full of good intentions I am hopefully forward. sure, but what this Congress must do is to provide new direction aa�d urgen- cy to the issue of nuclCar arms reduc- tions and I submit that the nuclear � -ireeze resolution is the serious Lype of action and expression that will speak with good faith to humanity which cries out for a responsible action and policy from our great Natian. � ,J . . r;�~ .f.. . BILL FRENZEL . o�s*�*�= THUtu Dtme�cr,M�wr�eso7� � MAYHflTH CHRISTENBEN � 180 Rmew�t.Bult.ol►�q Mnaenroue SS401 WASMINOTON OFFIC6t �ot�gre�� of t�e �t��teb �tate� °'�'°° 1028 La�xtWOa7n Bulwl►xs 202-225-2871 IRIS SAUNDERSON �ou�e of �epre�etttatibe�c �ST•LOI��a P�ARK�A� E12-925�540 �aa�jfngtott,�.�. 20515 April 30, 1982 "�?'r. �ert C�. �lson Cit� ofe5�t� Paul 3S6 City }-iall St. Paul, ".linnesota 55102 Dear '�Tr. Olson: Thank you for contacting my office concerning resolutions calling for a nuclear freeze. I agree that it is in our national interest, as well as in the Soviets', to negotiate real reductions in nuclear armaments. I question, however, whether a nuclear freeze is the best strategy for an effective arms control policy. �;'hile the Soviets raced ahead with their nuclear weapons pro�ram in the 1970s, we unilaterally practiced a semi-freeze. i�'ow, with our bomber and ICB",' forces in need of modernization, only ongoing U.S. programs can convince the Soviets to ne�otiate serious reductions. Furthermore, the freeze proposal applied to theater nuclear forces in Europe merely legitimizes the 300 Soviet SS20s while canceling NA�"O plans to deploy comparable weapons. Arms reductions is an amazingly complex matter, one that does not lend itself to simple solutions like the freeze proposal. The best way to achieve a comprehensive solution, I feel, is through renewed strategic arms reduction talks (START). But while the President got his arms control policy off on the right foot in his November speech, many Americans sense that the momentum has lagged. As a result, I have cosponsored I-f.�. Res. 443, introduced by Foreign Affairs Corrimittee Chairman Zablocki, which calls upon the President to begin the STAI�T talks immediately. I have enclosed a copy of this resolution, which I believe offers a responsible agenda for implementing a �vorkable arms control policy. I appreciate your interest in this important issue. Yours very truly, F3i11 Frenzel tti:ember of Congress BF:bj enclosure THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPEi2 MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS _ :s � ��i � ,� i 97Tx CONGRESS �• �• RES. 443 2D SESSION With respect to nuclear arms reductions. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 17, 1982 Mr. ZnBLOCxi introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs JOINT RESOLUTION With respect to nuclear arms reductions. VPhereas the greatest challenge fa,cing the Earth is to prevent the occurrence of nuclear war by accident or design; Whereas the increasing stockpiles of nuclear weapons a,nd nucle- ar delivery systems by both the United States and the Soviet Union have not strengthened international peace and security but in fact enhance the prospect for mutual destruc- tion; Whereas President Reagan, on November 18, 1981, stated that the United States "will seek to negotiate substantial reduc- tions in nuclear arms", and Congress has also urged the President to seek reductions in strategic arms; J -a 2 Whereas the United States has already proposed to the Soviet Union in Geneva a treaty embodying dramatic reductions in nuclear forces; and Whereas reductions in nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems are essential to reducing the risk of nuclear war: Now, therefore, be it 1 I�esolved by the Senate and House o f Representatives 2 o f the United States o f America in Congress assembled, 3 That the United States and the Soviet Union should immedi- 4 ately begin the strategic arms reduction talks (START) and 5 that those talks should have the following objectives: 6 (1) Preserving present limitations and controls on 7 current nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems 8 while pursuing substantial, equitable, and verifiable re- 9 ductions through numerical ceilings, annual percent- 10 ages, or any other equally effective and verifiable 11 means of strengthening strategic stability. 12 (2) Seeking every possible means to avoid the 13 testing and deployment of new and destabilizing nucle- 14 ar weapons which complicate further progress in pre- 15 serving deterrence and encouraging strategic arms re- 16 duction. 17 (3) Incorporating ongoing negotiations in Geneva 18 on land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles into 19 the START negotiations. O HJ 443 IH