of whom will come from the Atomic Energy Commission to give a close-knit coordinated team of permanent officials to this Agency. Although I hope we are going to get disarmament within your lifetime and mine, it is very apt to be a permanent agency, at least for the foreseeable future, and we might as well recognize that fact.

An Executive order agency wouldn't be the same thing. Congress must get involved in this. I think this is one of the most important reasons for the bill. In my judgment—and I know this is not a popular statement to make-we have a pretty substantial political, social, and economic lag in the Congress of the United States. We are behind the best current thinking in a host of different efforts, and probably behind further in the search for disarmament and peace than in any other aspect of our national policy.

If we could get this bill through right now before we go home, Congress would be involved in the search for peace and this, I think, would be a splendid thing, from the point of view of our Nation's success in the trying days which lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, the Disarmament Agency should be a line, not a staff agency.

At the moment Mr. McCloy, whose incredible abilities are indicated by the drafting of this bill, and the enormous support which he, with the help of the President and some of the rest of us, has been able to summon behind this bill, is working with one hand tied behind his back, because he is working in a staff capacity.

He should have a command, as the head of a statutory agency, just as the Cabinet officers have that limited command under the President of the United States which is so essential to their acting in the national interest. They make decisions which are implemented by action.

Mr. McCloy can only make recommendations which somebody else has to approve. This, I think, is a vital difference between what we need to have and what we presently have.

NEED FOR HIGH-LEVEL STUDIES

I have two specific suggestions to make with respect to the wording of the bill, Mr. Chairman. I will come to the first one through calling your attention to Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 offered on August 3 of this year by 28 Senators. I was the principal sponsor and you, sir, were the first cosponsor.

This concurrent resolution points out the basic need for undertaking immediately high-level studies in a search for a revision of the United Nations Charter to evolve an international agency which would insure the maintenance of peace if, as and when we can arrive at a disarmament agreement. In the course of arriving at it, it is going to be very important that we set up the international peacekeeping machinery and world law which will permit real success in our disarmament effort.

I note throughout section 31 of the bill very broad research and study functions for the Agency. Thus, subsection (e) at lines 14 and 15 of page 7 refers to—

the structure and operation of international control and other organizations useful for disarmament;

and subsection (h) at line 23 on the same page refers to—

the economic and political consequences of disarmament, including the problems of readjustment arising in industry and the reallocation of national resources;

PEACE "UNDER WORLD LAW"

Turning the page, to page 8, at line 11, I have an amendment to suggest. The subsection presently reads:

(1) the scientific, economic, political, legal, social, psychological, military, and technological factors related to the prevention of war with a view to a better understanding of how the basic structure of a lasting peace may be established.

The words "lasting peace" are the last words on line 14, page 8, and I would recommend inserting after the word "peace" "under world law." So that it would read, "of how the basic structure of a lasting peace under world law may be established."

We all, almost unanimously, say we support world law, we support world peace under world law, but nowhere in this bill that I could find is that phrase incorporated, and I would suggest this is a good place to put it, and I stress the importance of political research as well as scientific research and of legal research, as well as political research, because, in my judgment, disarmament has two sides to it: First, the scientific studies and the scientific plan which are necessary to make inspection and control effective.

Second, and equally important, research and development of international institutions, mediation, conciliation, judicial, legislative, and executive, which would insure the maintenance of peace under law in a disarming and disarmed world.

Much as we sought in the Constitution of the United States, with the aid of the greatest minds of those days, to set up the overall framework of our National Government, so the best brains in our Government today should be devoted in this Disarmament Agency to this same type of research on a broader scale.

I take it it is not without significance that the man who has done such an effective job in bringing this to the attention of the country and the Congress, and in getting the President's wholehearted support behind it, is a New York lawyer. I wish he were a Philadelphia lawyer, but I think we ought to upgrade the New York lawyers a little bit, because Mr. McCloy has done this and has done it conspicuously, and I am happy to belong to the same profession that he does, although I know the chairman does not always share my own high views of the profession in which I was trained.

Senator HUMPHREY. Just a point of personal objectivity.
Senator CLARK. Yes, sir.

Now, another word or two and I shall be done.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 37

I do hope that when the Foreign Relations Committee goes into executive session in connection with S. 2180 you, sir, as the principal cosponsor and several other cosponsors on Senate Congressional Resolution 37, will give careful thought to how the objectives of that resolution can be enmeshed in the phraseology and draftsmanship of this bill, because I think it is of the greatest possible importance that we

point out that the objectives of the concurrent resolution are implemented by the bill which you have under consideration.

Senator HUMPHREY. Senator, I am going to ask that the language of that resolution be printed at this point in the record so that there may be a continuity here.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, sir. (The resolution referred to is as follows:)

[S. Con. Res. 37, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the basic purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to achieve a just and lasting peace; and

Whereas there can be no such peace without the devolpment of the rule of law in the limited field of war prevention; and

Whereas peace does not rest on law today but on the delicate balance of terror of armed force; and

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly at its fourteenth session unanimously adopted "the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control" and called upon governments "to make every effort to achieve a constructive solution of this problem"; and

Whereas a just and lasting peace would not be assured even if nations lay down their arms unless international institutions for preventing war were strengthened; and

Whereas the United Nations constitutes an important influence for peace but needs to be strengthened to achieve the rule of law in the world community; and

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly at its tenth session resolved that "a general conference to review the charter shall be held at an appropriate time"; and appointed a "Committee consisting of all the members of the United Nations to consider, in consultation with the Secretary-General, the question of fixing a time and place for the conference, and its organization and procedures"; and

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly at its fourteenth session resolved "to keep in being the Committee on Arrangements for a Conference for the Purpose of Reviewing the Charter, and to request the Committee to report, with recommendations, to the General Assembly not later than at its sixteenth session": Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States position at the next meeting of the Committee on Arrangements for a Conference for the Purpose of Reviewing the Charter should be that the Committee recommends to the United Nations General Assembly that a charter review conference be held not later than December 31, 1962, and that member governments be requested to prepare recommendations and to exchange views with respect to United Nations Charter review and revision in order to facilitate the organization of the said conference and to further the chances of its success.

SEC. 2. The President is hereby requested to initiate high-level studies in the executive branch of the Government to determine what changes should be made in the Charter of the United Nations to promote a just and lasting peace through the development of the rule of law in the limited field of war prevention. The President is further requested to report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, within twelve months after the date of approval of this resolution, the results of such studies.

SEC. 3. It is further the sense of the Congress that the United States should present specific proposals, to strengthen the authority of the United Nations to prevent war, at future international conferences concerning general disarmament and to the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

Senator CLARK. I note also, for the benefit of the press, that this resolution is identical with Senate Concurrent Resolution 83 of the last Congress of which resolution President Kennedy, then Senator Kennedy, was a cosponsor, so we can rest assured that the objective of the resolution has had the approval of John F. Kennedy.

IMPORTANCE OF WORLD OPINION

Two more points and I shall be done. General Gruenther testified yesterday, and Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles, in his press conference yesterday, stressed the importance of our world image, of our world opinion, and pointed out that people abroad just do not believe us when we say we search for peace and freedom.

This is unfortunate. The Lord alone knows why they do not, but it does indicate that we have not been successful in persuading those people that our own Revolutionary precepts, based on freedom, are still the policy of our National Government.

I can think of no one bit of legislation that could do more to dispel that illusion on the part of the peoples throughout the rest of the world than the passage of this bill.

POSSIBLE CHAIRMAN OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

My next and last draftsman's suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is on page 6 of the bill, section 26, where a general advisory committee is called for.

I would recommend that that section be amended so as to provide for a general advisory committee which would meet not less than twice a year, and that it should have the function and the duty of proffering advice to the President and to the disarmament director in this whole field of disarmament, world peace, and world law.

If that were done, I would be very hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that the former President, Dwight Eisenhower, could be persuaded to become the chairman of that advisory committee.

We all know of his dedicated devotion to the cause of peace. We have heard him say time after time that he would like to devote the rest of his life to the search for peace, and I can think of nothing that would give greater status and impact to our whole national effort than to have former President Eisenhower accept. Although, of course, I have not been in touch with him, I would be hopeful that he would be interested in assuming the chairmanship of this advisory committee, but I do not think we can ask him to unless we give it more status than is now proposed. I suggest we provide that it meet at least twice yearly and that it be authorized to offer advice and not just wait until somebody asks for it.

ISSUE RAISED BY THE BILL

In the end, Mr. Chairman, and I now conclude, the issue raised by this bill is whether the Congress of the United States takes seriously the search for peace, the search for security, or whether we think, as some cynical persons do, that this is a utopian idea, which is fundamentally hypocritical.

I think the Congress does take it seriously, and the best way to evidence it is by passing this legislation as the President has created it.

In my judgment, we are engaged in a struggle in this country, as I guess we have been since the Founding Fathers first persuaded a reluctant electorate to accept the Constitution of the United States

as their framework of government, between those leaders of the community who are creative, and those who are merely dominant. We see it on the floor of the Senate day after day after day.

Here is one of the best opportunities we have had in a long, long time to prove to the country and to the world that the creative forces in the Congress of the United States are able to overcome the merely dominant forces who look back in a sterile way to a past that is dead. This will be concrete evidence that those in the Senate and those in the House who believe that the United States must take the initiative in moving forward in a constantly changing world are in control of the legislative process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy and for permitting me to appear.

EDITORIAL REACTION TO THE BILL

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, Senator.

I would like to make just one or two comments. First, I want to compliment you on the well-reasoned and cogent statement that you have given to us. I think it is testimony of your intimate knowledge of the subject matter and your deep concern about it.

I want this record to be clear that I know of no one in the Congress who has a greater concern over the question of world peace, security and freedom.

I think you would be interested to know, Senator Clark, that an analysis I had made by the Library of Congress of the editorial opinion on the President's statement on this agency at the time the bill was introduced was overwhelmingly sympathetic.

Senator CLARK. I think this is true. I was shooting for a particular bird.

Senator HUMPHREY. Sir?

Senator CLARK. I was shooting for a particular bird.

Senator HUMPHREY. I trust that you hit your mark.

I want this record to be clear on that. I did not want to utilize the record to place all of these editorials in the transcript because that is an expensive operation; it is unnecessary. I do have copies of those editorials.

The overwhelming reaction in the foreign press was favorable. This is something of which we ought to be fully cognizant.

MILITARY LEADERS' DEDICATION TO PEACE

I think you would be interested to know that the representatives of the Military Establishment who came before this committee were strong in their endorsement of this proposal.

I think the greatest testimony to freedom and democracy as we know it is that out of this society even military men who have been trained in the arts of war become men passionately dedicated to peace.

Look back, for instance, at General Marshall, General Bradley, Bedell Smith, and many others. And right now in our time, we have General Lemnitzer, who gave fine testimony here, and General Gruenther, General MacArthur, and President Eisenhower, who has, by message, endorsed the general objectives of this proposal. I name only a few.