University of Virginia Library

Spong Questions Sincerity Of Students

The following is an edited
transcript of an interview with
Senator William B. Spong (D-Va)
conducted by Cavalier Daily
Columnist Charles Weir during the
recent Spring vacation.

Mr. Spong is the senior Senator
from Virginia. In 1966, he defeated
Senator A. Willis Robertson (D-Va)
in the Democratic primary and
went on to defeat his Republican
opponent in the November general
election.

Following World War Two, Mr.
Spong studied at The University's
Law School (Law, '47).

Mr. Spong sits on the Foreign
Relations and Commerce
Committees and the Select
Committee on Equal Educational
Opportunities. He has traveled
extensively abroad and was an early
leader in the anti-pollution crusade.

Recently a Committee of
Friends published a collection of
his speeches in book form and
entitled it "A Man For Today."

* * *

Q: What early steps did you take
to improve our environment?

A: I was placed on the Air and
Water Pollution subcommittee on
the week after I became a United
States Senator. As a matter of fact,
I was flying around in the smog of
Los Angeles a week after I got here.
I began work immediately on air
and water pollution bills. I have
worked on solid waste disposal
bills. So, I have spent four years on
this subject. When we began, the
hearings were not well attended,
when I spoke out in the state, it
didn't really attract much
attention. Earth Day was sort of a
revelation to me, because we had
been struggling with this problem
for many, many months.

Q: What are our chances for saving
the environment?

A: I think that they are very good.
I think that we have identified the
problems that can be attacked
immediately. I think the public is
now sufficiently aware of the
problem, so that it is not as

difficult as it might have been to
get legislation passed with mass
public support. We know that the
internal combustion engine has got
to be modified to meet the air
pollution problems. We know that
waste treatment facilities along the
rivers have got to be constructed.
We have got to have tertiary sewage
treatment in certain places, we've
got to have minimum treatment
where none exists. This will go a
long way toward helping with water
pollution. And we are beginning to
understand that we can recycle our
products, paper, aluminium and
other things. There is a great deal of
research going into this. This
doesn't mean that there isn't a great
deal more that has to be done, but
the problem is identified in areas
that are contributing about 50
percent of the present pollution.

Q: You have been speaking so far,
particularly of water and air
pollution. What about land
pollution, such things as strip
mining and poor farming, what
regulations do you see coming up
for those?

A: I think that the present law is
doing something about strip mining.
This is causing some economic
hardships in West Virginia,
Kentucky and Southwest Virginia.
But, I think that the public has
generally become aware of the fact
that we have abused our resources
and a great deal of land planning
that has not previously taken place
is going to have to take place. It
doesn't just involve mining areas,
coastal zones particularly areas along
the coastal water front. We are
going to have to preserve wetlands
better than we have.

Q: Some people say that our
environment may only last 20 or 30
years. Just how bad is the
environment?

A: I think some of those
predictions are rather drastic. I will
say this though, if we had gone
another 20 years without
recognizing the problem and
beginning to do something, the
results would have been very
serious indeed. I hope that we can
turn this around. And I am
certainly more optimistic about this
than I was two years ago.

Q: From your experiences in the
Senate and on the Foreign
Relations Committee, what
differences have you noticed in
U.S. Foreign relations?

A: That is rather difficult to
answer. I think that the U.S. has
had a rather difficult position in the
world ever since the end of World
War Two. We were rather
inexperienced in the world. Here
we were, a great and powerful
nation and yet in many ways we
were immature in foreign relations.
I think we have undergone a
growing up process. We have made
mistakes, certainly we have. I think
becoming involved in a land war in
Southeast Asia has got to be looked
on in retrospect as a mistake. In the
Middle East, we probably haven't
always done the things that would
be in our national interest. On
balance, now after 25 years, I think
this country has shown some signs
of maturity. Now, what the
attitudes of other countries are
toward the United States, I think
that we have got to recognize that
no great country or power has ever
been loved by the rest of the world.
I think what we should strive for is
more respect from the world than I
am afraid we presently enjoy. I
don't think we can guarantee
security for the entire world. I
think we have problems of our own
here at home. But, I do think we
should continue to provide better
training and techniques to
underdeveloped countries and
people throughout the world,
where we think we can improve
their way of life.

Q: You said that possibly our
getting involved in a land war in
Asia was a mistake. What damage
do you think has been done by that
mistake?

A: I guess that historians will be
assessing that for years. I think that
will depend on whether we can
extricate ourselves without further
difficulty. I think everyone, going
back to Gen. Eisenhower, has
always recognized the problem
attendant to becoming involved in a
land war in any part of Asia. It was
a mistake from the standpoint of
billions of dollars and the fact that
once our troops became involved it
led from one thing to another. This
isn't to say that our help of South
Vietnam has been a complete
minus. And I don't think that it
has. It is entirely possible that
things that have happened in
Indonesia, happened in Thailand
and many other parts of the Pacific
would not have happened if we had
not stood with South Vietnam.