DISARMAMENT AGENCY

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1961

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:40 a.m., in room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey presiding. Present: Senator Humphrey.

Senator HUMPHREY. The Committee on Foreign Relations is meeting today to continue and, we trust, to conclude, its hearings on S. 2180, a bill establishing a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security.

There are a number of witnesses scheduled to be heard today, and for that reason it has, unfortunately, been necessary to ask them to limit their oral presentations to 10 minutes.

I might say this does not apply to Members of Congress. It is very difficult for Members of Congress to limit themselves to 10 minutes, even a Member of the House.

The prepared statements will, of course, be included in the hearing record.

The first witness this morning is our very distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Clark, who is one of the main cosponsors of S. 2180, and who has been a leader in the U.S. Senate on the subject of disarmament, and also the strengthening of the United Nations, and the advocacy of world law or the strengthening of the International Court of Justice.

We are very pleased to have you here, Senator Clark. Will you proceed and give us your views on this bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am most grateful to you for your kind words, and happy to be a cosponsor of this bill and to have an opportunity to appear in support of it before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate.

MAIN FOREIGN POLICY PRONGS: ADEQUATE DEFENSE, ADEQUATE FOREIGN

AID, AND S. 2180

In my judgment, there should be three main prongs to our foreign policy: first, an adequate defense to enable our U.S. forces to move quickly and effectively anywhere in the world where peace is threat

ened.

You and I, sir, have joined with our colleagues in the House and Senate in doing our share in that regard in voting for the defense appropriation bill on which action has recently been completed.

The second prong of our foreign policy should be an adequate foreign aid program, with proper Treasury financing, in order to take such steps as we can alone and in conjunction with other nations to render the lot of the underdeveloped part of the world more bearable, and thus to sustain peoples of those countries in their fight for freedom.

The Congress is about to perform its responsibility in that regard, and I am hopeful that the foreign aid bill will become law within the next 2 weeks.

The third, and to my way of thinking equally, if not more important, prong of our foreign policy should be the passage of this bill, S. 2180, in order that the United States show to all the world the sincerity of its belief in its search for peace under freedom and under world law.

In my judgment, the passage of this bill at this time is of comparable importance to the defense bill and the foreign aid bill because by taking this step the Congress will become involved itself in the important search for total and permanent disarmament, under enforceable world law, and will show not only to our own people but to peoples all across the world and, in particular, to the peoples behind the Iron Curtain and Bamboo Curtain that we mean what we say when we assert that our national goal is a peaceful world under freedom.

This bill can be of enormous impact in making that clear to the entire world as well as giving us a sensible type of organization in which to pursue that most important national goal.

NO SECURITY IN ARMS RACE

Surely, it must be clear, Mr. Chairman, to all the world that there can be no security in a continuation of the arms race; there can be no peace, no freedom, unless in some way, in some manner, governments are able to bring an end to the arms race and to proceed by gradual stages, if you will, but to proceed nonetheless actively, energetically, and forcefully toward that total and permanent disarmament under the rule of law which is the only real hope for survival in the world today.

PERFECT TIMING OF S. 2180

I suggest that the timing of this bill is perfect. It comes at exactly the right time. It comes at a time when the world is concerned on the potential of war in Berlin, when we are terribly upset about conditions in Cuba and in Laos.

The time to act is when the clouds are blackest and not when the sun is shining, in this area of peace and disarmament.

I envisage within the next 3 months a continuing crisis over Berlin with the German elections in September, the meeting of the Communist groups in October, and then hard-fought negotiations to settle, we hope, not only the Berlin question but the German question, and this bill can be of the greatest possible impact in assisting our search for a peaceful and just solution to the current crisis.

Mr. Khrushchev has stated as recently as in Vienna that he is in favor of total and permanent disarmament under strict international controls; that he would waive the veto, that he is prepared to sit down and negotiate a meaningful agreement.

What better evidence can we give to him and the rest of the world that we mean business, too, in this regard, and that we intend to put the best brains of America to work in searching out for that objective.

Now, it may well be that Mr. Khrushchev does not mean what he said. He has a long record of broken promises, the most recent one being in the closing of the Berlin border just 48 hours ago.

But it occurs to me it is our obligation, as a peace-seeking nation, to put the Soviet leader to the test, to call his bluff if bluff is to be, and in any event, to assert our own strong will to pursue this objective, and to bring him and, in due course, the Chinese Communists as well, into the world of peace-loving nations where clearly they are not now, and where our country in my judgment should take the initiative. So I say again, in my judgment the timing of this bill is absolutely perfect.

NEED FOR ADEQUATE ORGANIZATION OF DISARMAMENT EFFORT

Now, Mr. Chairman, it must be clear that our present search for disarmament has been inadequately organized. I can describe only as chaotic the efforts of the State Department to manage this disarmament question during most of the administrations of President Truman and President Eisenhower. In fact, the Acheson-LilienthalBaruch plan might well be said to be the last real initiative which our country has taken in the search for peace.

Since then we have been largely on the defensive, and it is not without significance, in my judgment, that disarmament has been so downgraded in the State Department that when Mr. Eaton asked representatives of four of our allies to come to Washington to discuss the Western position prior to the 10-nation talks in Geneva last year, he was never able to tell them the U.S. position because the State Department and the Defense Department had been unable to resolve their differences. This in itself would occur to me to be convincing evidence of the need for this particular Agency, whose Director would have direct presidential access on certain questions.

NEED FOR ADEQUATE STATUS FOR DISARMAMENT EFFORT

I turn now to the bill, Mr. Chairman, and I point out the importance of having adequate status for this disarmament effort. You and I are the principal sponsors on the bill creating a Department of Urban Affairs. We know that the status of the needs of our cities at the Federal level in Washington is one of the most important reasons for advancing that proposal to give our urban citizens the same status at the Cabinet table as our citizens living on farms have had for a hundred years.

I am glad that the President has also recommended an adequate status for the office entrusted with the study and implementation of disarmament.

DISARMAMENT NOT UTOPIAN GOAL

I deplore, as I am sure you do, the attitude of some citizens and some of our friends in the press with regard to this bill and with regard to total disarmament. In fact, nothing does this country more harm than to have responsible members of the press suggest that disarmament is a utopian goal, to suggest this is a hypocritical goal. This does the country no good. It does freedom no good, and the world at large no good.

I hope by passing this bill Congress will give convincing evidence that we are not cynical about disarmament; we do not consider disarmament utopian, we consider it a hard-boiled realistic goal which is within the capacity of living men to achieve within the foreseeable future.

So I am happy with the status which has been given to this Agency.

NEED FOR COUNTERVAILING DISARMAMENT PERSONNEL

I would point out, not in derogation of any able and dedicated public servants, but as a fact that many of our Government officers have a natural conflict of interest with regard to disarmament; high-minded, able, sincere, dedicated, patriotic Americans though they may be. The officers of the Defense Establishment both in and out of uniform, who must think in terms of the use of military force, those who are engaged in the work of creating even more dreadful atomic weapons under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Committee and finally, the permanent Foreign Service, skilled in diplomacy and the use of existing institutions-none are trained to think in terms of disarmament and the creation of essential peace-keeping machinery.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, there ought to be a countervailing power at a high level in the executive branch of our Government trained in the search for peace and the search for disarmament, and that its status should be identical in terms of the power it can exert on the Executive and the extent to which it can carry out the legislative policy of the Congress as the other agencies I have mentioned.

Therefore, I think it quite important that the disarmament director should have direct access to the President.

U.S.I.A. DIRECTOR'S RELATIONSHIP TO PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF STATE

I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is quite a close analogy, although not a complete analogy, in this regard to direct access to the President on the part of the Administrator of the new AID agency proposed in the pending foreign aid bill and the Director of the Information Agency. If the Committee desires, I would be happy to supply a memorandum elaborating on this point.

(The memorandum referred to follows:)

RELATIONSHIP OF THE DIRECTOR, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY, TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE

The U.S. Information Agency was established by Reorganization Plan No. 8 of August 1, 1953.

The plan provides in section 1(b) that "There shall be at the head of the Agency a Director of the U.S. Information Agency, hereinafter referred to as the Director, who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and

consent of the Senate and shall receive compensation at the rate of $21,000 a year. The Secretary of State shall advise with the President concerning the appointment and tenure of the Director."

The plan further provides as follows:

1

"(c) (1) The Secretary of State shall direct the policy and control the content of a program, for use abroad, on official U.S. positions, including interpretations of current events, identified as official positions by an exclusive descriptive label. "(c) (2) The Secretary of State shall continue to provide to the Director on a current basis full guidance concerning the foreign policy of the United States. "(c) (3) Nothing herein shall affect the functions of the Secretary of State with respect to conducting negotiations with other governments."

In his letter transmitting the proposed reorganization plan to the Congress, the President said: "I have likewise instructed that the new U.S. Information Agency shall report to the President through the National Security Council, or as the President may otherwise direct." In practice, this has meant only the submission of an annual agency status report to the National Security Council. As a general rule, policy and operating problems have been discussed directly with the President rather than their being submitted through or discussed by the National Security Council.

Since the inception of the Agency the President has invited the Director of the Agency to participate in National Security Council meetings as an "observer." This practice has continued to the present administration where Mr. Murrow attends National Security Council meetings.

Note that the USIA Director sits with the National Security Council, and he has direct access to the President; yet he receives policy direction from the Secretary of State.

So I think we have plenty of precedents for the type of organization put forward in the bill.

I am not worried at all about the suggestion that no man can serve two masters. I do not know about you, but I have been serving at least two ever since my daughter became old enough to order me around and tell me to do this, and that and the other thing, and she tells me different things than my wife does; and my son also gets into the act.

Senator HUMPHREY. Do you have any allegiance to the majority leader and the majority whip on these things? [Laughter.]

Senator CLARK. I have a feeling, Mr. Chairman, that we are all three in the same boat. [Laughter.]

So I am not concerned about the cliche that no man can serve two masters. We do it all the time in our daily lives, every day in our daily lives.

CONTINUITY GAINED BY AGENCY WITH STATUTORY STATUS

Of course, one of the most important things about giving statutory status to this Agency is that it will have continuity.

That has been said, and I infer it may be true, that really able men are becoming increasingly unwilling to come down here and involve themselves on an ad hoc basis in this search for peace through disarmament, and one only has to look at the unhappy record of the many, many individuals who have been brought down here on an ad hoc basis to take a temporary run for their money in this disarmament field to note how important continuity is.

It is important not only for the Director of the Agency but also for the employees and personnel, to the Assistant Director, the other top level policymakers called for by this bill. Many of them, I am sure, will be drawn from the rolls of the State Department; many of them, I am sure, also will come from the Defense Department; some