Perhaps there could be an occasion develop where there would be a strong difference of opinion, outside of foreign policy, but internal matters of research or overlapping of legitimate disarmament interest and legitimate military interest or a legitimate AEC interest, which might very well be related to both.

In this capacity, I think the intent of this bill is that this gentleman feels he can go directly to the President of the United States, I am sure with these people who disagree with him, who are Cabinet officers in the case of the Secretary of Defense, and have an equal argument and present his points of view, his recommendation, which is different from that of the Secretary of Defense, and the President will have the responsibility of making a decision.

Now, this is the way it worked very occasionally under the Committee of Principals.

The Committee of Principals occasionally-which were State, Defense, and AEC, and two or three other people-occasionally we found a conflict that was very difficult to resolve. It was largely a conflict because of interpretation of technical background, and we had to go to the President for resolution.

Now this means that the man who is responsible primarily for the U.S. Disarmament Agency, for matters pertaining primarily to disarmament, can go to the President of the United States, if such a conflict happened to develop, and make his recommendation to the President.

From a practical point of view, the President would say, "What is the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense?" And he would say, "Well, I don't agree with him, and here is his position," and then the President is faced with one of those awful decisions that has no answer because that is the only time you ever get the President into the business, when there is no answer, and he has to make an answer of some character or other.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, sir; and in this instance, the difference between the present situation and what would happen if this proposed legislation became law, is that the Congress would have expressed its intent that this is the way it should be done.

Mr. GATES. Yes.

Senator HUMPHREY. It clears away the uncertainty, the ambiguity, the underbrush so that the lines of authority are clearly established.

Whether those lines of authority are used is dependent upon the executive branch of Government.

Mr. GATES. Yes, exactly.

Senator HUMPHREY. The other day we appropriated a little more than the President and the Bureau of the Budget said was needed. I imagine that the expenditure of that money will be pretty much in the hands of the executive branch of the Government, whether we appropriated it or not. But at least the authority was laid down there.

Congress has not been able to make the President do what he does not want to do. I say most respectfully and, at times, with a degree of happiness, that the executive branch has not been able to make the Congress do what it does not want to do sometimes, and so be it.

Mr. Gates, I do not have any other questions. I do want particularly to thank you for your willingness to come here and share your observations with us. I believe that the testimony of men like yourself and the witnesses this morning and yesterday is very compelling. This is not testimony from theoreticians; this is testimony from people who have had the security of our country in their hands and I, for one, want to compliment you and thank you very sincerely.

Mr. GATES. Thank you very much.

Senator HUMPHREY. I see that Mr. Eaton, our former U.S. representative to the Conference on Comprehensive Disarmament, is present with us.

Mr. McCLOY. I think, as a matter of time, you might put Mr. York on first.

Senator HUMPHREY. Is Dr. York prepared to testify?

Mr. YORK. I was scheduled to appear this afternoon.
Senator HUMPHREY. Would you prefer to wait?

Mr. YORK. Yes.

Senator HUMPHREY. We are going to do some voting, but, if it is agreeable with you, we will wait for the afternoon.

How about you, Mr. Eaton?

Mr. EATON. That is fine for me.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much. We surely welcome

you.

Our next witness will be Frederick Eaton, former ambassador to the 10-nation Conference on Comprehensive Disarmament.

Mr. Eaton, welcome again, and it is nice to see you.

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK EATON, FORMER AMBASSADOR OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE TEN-NATION CONFERENCE ON COMPREHENSIVE DISARMAMENT

Mr. EATON. Thank you very much, Senator Humphrey.

I am glad to have the opportunity to testify before your committee in strong support of S. 2180. I say that in spite of the feeling of many that this is not an opportune time to have fruitful talks with the Soviets in the disarmament area.

There may never be a fruitful time, but I am hopeful that there will be. At such time we must be prepared. Without an agency such as proposed we will have difficulty. We will find ourselves unprepared in the future, as we have in the past, to meet the deadlines as they come up.

My interest in disarmament stems not only from my interest as a citizen, but from the months I spent in Geneva talking with the Soviets in this general field.

I believe it is crucial that the committee act favorably on this legislation at this time, even though international tensions do not make negotiations with the Soviets particularly propitious.

LACK OF ADEQUATE ORGANIZATION AND STAFF TO HANDLE DISARMAMENT MATTERS

The executive branch has never been adequately organized or staffed to handle the complicated problem of disarmament.

From firsthand experience I know that extremely competent men are engaged in disarmament work in our Government. Their number is inadequate, their authority undefined, and their effectiveness severely limited by lack of any central direction.

SUPPORT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DISARMAMENT AGENCY

The decision of S. 2180 to establish a semiautonomous Agency within the Executive establishment, having general jurisdiction of disarmament-placed in general within the Department of State but with the Director having access to the President-is a wise one.

Normally, I would favor not proliferating independent agencies. Unfortunately, however, the interests of the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission are so real that to effectively coordinate their activities, conduct the research that is necessary, and develop the backup papers, it is important that the Director be in a position to speak with the authority of the White House at times. This morning the question arose of the Director's access to the President. My own feeling is that regardless of what the organization is, the job is only going to be well done if you get the right fellow to do it. Giving the man the stature which you give him in this bill would make it far easier to get a man of the qualifications needed here. They are of a very high order, not only ability to cooperate with the departments concerned, but to read intelligently papers on research and development. Judgment of when to stop is required. For inspection of disarmament can never be perfect; it will have to be something far less than that.

PROVISIONS OF S. 2180

I believe, as the bill provides, that the proposed Agency should have its own budget and its own employment procedures.

If it operates successfully within proper limits, it should be excluded from normal contractual provisions, and exempted from the conflict-of-interest statutes.

The provisions of the bill relating to coordination of activities in the disarmament areas of various departments and agencies are essential and appear to be adequate.

The proposed Agency should be capable of conducting its own research and making its own studies, but should avoid unnecessary duplication.

When there are facilities and personnel available within the departments or agencies of the Government they should be used. If they are inadequate they should be supplemented. But if it becomes necessary to establish research and a study program for the Agency, authority should vest in the Agency to establish them. S. 2180 would permit this.

The absence of one central control authority over disarmament is one of our failures today.

The bill has been carefully worked out by Mr. McCloy and his staff. It represents months of work within the departments, with you, Senator, and with other members of the committee.

My own feeling is that you should not get into unnecessary delay on the bill because of technicalities of language. I refer to an alleged ambiguity as to whether the allegiance of the Director would be divided.

IMPORTANCE OF DISARMAMENT RESEARCH AND STUDIES

Too much stress cannot be placed on the importance of research and studies in the disarmament area. A year ago and I do not believe the situation has changed-the lack of adequate backup papers to support the American positions was very serious.

The absence of documentation leaves the negotiator in an extremely difficult position.

For example, every disarmament plan that we have ever had over the last 10 years has suggested the reduction of arms commensurate with the reduction of forces. We have never had any adequate agreement on what arms we are going to throw away when the time comes. The proposed Agency, I hope, would work out such a program.

We have talked of closing down production in our atomic plant for military purposes, but we have never had adequate programs for monitoring the closing. We have spoken about denying outer space to missiles of mass destruction. But we have not explained how you monitor it, how far back in the production line you have to go, and how much inside inspection is necessary.

All of these elements have been the subject of very serious consideration by competent men, but they have never formulated a program adequately documented.

This Agency, I hope, would provide the vehicle for accomplishing this.

STRENGTHENING DISARMAMENT ESTABLISHMENT

There undoubtedly will be opposition to the adoption of this act at this time by those who believe that the continuation of disarmament discussion is neither appropriate nor useful in the light of the present international atmosphere.

I share their concern over our position in this regard. Such apprehension, however, should not deter us from strengthening our position and our disarmament establishment against the day when negotiations may be more effective.

RESUMPTION OF NUCLEAR TESTING

I firmly believe that the United States should immediately renew atomic tests for weapons purposes. It is useless and confusing at the present time to continue to advance new general disarmament plans with further concessions in the multination forums until it is more apparent than now that the Soviets are willing to have a serious discussion.

Senator HUMPHREY. Let me get that clear, Mr. Eaton. You believe that there should be a renewal of atomic tests?

Mr. EATON. Yes; I do. I do not think it is germane to the bill, except that I want to answer those who feel that discussion at this time is not particularly fruitful, and that because tests should be renewed, the bill should not be enacted.

Senator HUMPHREY. I see.

Mr. EATON. I feel that that is the greatest reason for passing the statute. I stress the words "at the present" time because I am hopeful that this condition may change in the future.

Senator HUMPHREY. Are you saying that you think these tests should be renewed at once?

Mr. EATON. I am not in a position at the moment to say whether the United States is prepared to renew them at once, but I think they should be renewed the moment that we have the underground facilities. I am not going to get into this extended discussion. Senator HUMPHREY. I just wanted to get your point.

NEED FOR DISARMAMENT AGENCY

You do feel, however, despite that point of view which you hold very sincerely, that this particular proposal for this Agency is required at this time?

Mr. EATON. I do, indeed.

Senator HUMPHREY. Now, why?

Mr. EATON. Even though we are successful in keeping ahead in the arms race, security does not lie on this line.

The proliferation of huge weapons of mass destruction of certain countries will increase rather than decrease our lack of security. Even though Congress would give the military the budget they need, the military is highly successful in their research, and we have the best weapons in the world, as a result they would not assure peace and security today.

We must find other means. My own belief is that they lie in the area of disarmament, and that we have waited too long to set up in our Government an effective Disarmament Agency.

This bill, it seems to me, sets up one. Research development must be coordinated. A future negotiator should not be put in the position in which our delegation found itself in January of last year when we were scheduled to sit down on the 15th of March in a multination conference. We were without an agreed-upon position within our own Government, let alone an agreed-upon position with our allies.

I am hopeful that that situation has improved today, and I am convinced, under the leadership that we have had here, that it has. However, nothing will take the place of a centralized control where directions and lines of authority are clear. I urge this although I believe that this is not the moment for fruitful discussion with the Soviets.

NEED FOR PREPARATIONS IN THE DISARMAMENT FIELD

Senator HUMPHREY. But you believe in preparations for those discussions.

Mr. EATON. Yes; preparations against the day when discussions would be fruitful. We should, by diplomatic channels, continually impress upon the Soviets our desire to have agreement in the area of disarmament. Let them choose any area they wish for discussion; so long as we can have commensurate inspection, we should be prepared to go ahead with it.