amounts of public funds at their service, to accelerate research which stressed the difficulty of establishing a workable detection system.

This brings us to another advantage of having these functions under an agency whose goal is to help achieve "a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments." This advantage is simply that a disarmament agency is more likely to conduct research which will provide the underpinnings for workable disarmament agreements than an agency whose function is primarily military. Dr. James B. Fisk, president of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, former Vice Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee, and a participant in two technical conferences on a nuclear test ban and in President Kennedy's recent scientific panel on possible Soviet tests, put it this way:

"While the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission will always have a great interest and responsibility and will make contributions in this field, they should not be expected to carry the burden both of maximizing and, simultaneously, minimizing arms."

Those who drafted this bill showed they have a practical grasp of the complexities of disarmament when they stated that the Agency "must have the capacity to provide the essential scientific, economic, political, military, psychological, and technological information upon which realistic disarmament policy must be based."

We are particularly interested in insuring that the Agency give serious attention to the economic consequences of disarmament. While there are, in our opinion, other more important reasons for the lack of progress in the disarmament field, certainly the legitimate worries about job, income, and career by the many millions involved in what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex" serve as a deterrent to bold and vigorous initiatives. We cannot expect people enthusiastically to work themselves out of a job, at least not until they are assured of another one.

Roughly 5 percent of our work force and fully half of our scientists work today on defense contracts. Even without disarmament they are subject to erratic conditions of employment because of the rapid technological change in weapons systems. Many members of the Armed Forces would also have to be integrated into civilian life under disarmament agreements. Yet, until very recently there had been no planning to meet these problems of transition.

This bill does authorize research into "the economic and political consequences of disarmament, including the problems of readjustment arising in industry and the reallocation of national resources." We hope this research will be not only extensive, but will also lead to specific policy recommendations to help ease the shift from defense work to civilian work. I suggest that under the section worded "purpose" there be added subdivision 5, directing the authority to prepare, and keep current, plans for economic disarmament.

We further recommend that the Agency bring in consultants with a wide variety of backgrounds and attitudes, especially some of the serious students of disarmament who have not participated previously in policymaking. The subject of disarmament cuts across so many lines in national and international affairs that no single approach, no single school of thought can pretend to provide all the answers. Every assumption should be subject to challenge and verification.

We welcome the proposed establishment of a General Advisory Committee of outstanding citizens, in the expectation that this body will provide still another source of stimulation and fresh ideas for the Agency and a much needed contact with the public. In this connection, we look forward to the establishment of a substantial public information program to help in the development of an informed attitude toward disarmament on the part of a large body of American citizens.

The combination of a permanent planning agency, an informed citizenry, strong Presidential leadership and congressional support will provide, we submit, the best formula for maximum bargaining strength in achieving workable agreements to end the risk and dangers of the present competition in mutual terror.

PROGRESS OF HEARINGS

Senator HUMPHREY. May I say to the witness, and I know you have a busy schedule today, that I have a meeting with the majority leader in about 10 minutes and therefore I will have to recess these hearings. We will be back at 2 o'clock in this same room, and we'll proceed with the witnesses as best we can.

I beg the indulgence of our witnesses. We have on the Senate floor this important foreign aid bill in which my heart and soul are very much involved, and, I might add, I hope my mind. I am trying to participate a little bit in that, if only indirectly, as we conduct these hearings.

If we have to break up the meeting this afternoon, the witnesses will just have to take it in stride because we have some important rollcall votes. We will do the best we can, for we will most likely not be able to conclude these hearings today as we had intended. We will, perhaps, have to go over for another day and then hold the record open for those persons who wish to be heard, either in support or in opposition.

am very pleased with the nature of the testimony. I am looking forward to hearing some of those who are going to oppose this proposal, because I am sure there are those who do feel that way, and they ought to be heard.

If there are two sides to the question, and there generally are different points of view, we ought to hear from both.

STATEMENT OF AFL-CIO

We will insert the statement of Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, director, Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO, in the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Biemiller follows:)

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION,

AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman, my name is Andrew J. Biemiller. I am director of the Department of Legislation of the AFL-CIO, and I am here to state the views of that organization on S. 2180, a bill to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency.

The question of disarmament is one which deserves the closest study by our Government. No objective is closer to the hearts and minds of men everywhere, no goal more cherished, than disarmament and peace.

And yet as a nation we have failed to devote adequate study and planning to the ramifications of arms reduction, and we have failed to give sufficient status to those whose responsibility this has been. The implications of disarmament, not only in our own country but in all the nations of the world, are complex and difficult. How to control military forces, how to provide for proper inspection during the reduction of military forces, the effects of modern weaponry on disarmament, and the economic implications of diminishing military expenditures all require the most detailed appraisal.

There are those who suggest that disarmament during the present world crisis is an impossibility, and that therefore it is valueless and even perhaps dangerous to discuss it or study it. We would agree that the outlook at the present time is not optimistic. We would agree that at this time we must present to the forces of aggression in the world the strongest possible military posture, and that disarmament without proper and effective control is unthinkable.

But we should not allow present world tensions to divert us from the rigorous study of disarmament problems. At some time in the future, maybe 1, 10, or 50 years from now, the opportunity for substantial and acceptable disarmament will occur. When it does occur we must be ready for it.

This Nation has developed its technology of weaponry and its techniques and training for defense to a high degree. We know how to build, aim and fire a ballistic missile, how to build and maneuver a nuclear submarine and a jet bomber. In this area, we are highly skilled, and prepared for almost any eventuality.

But our goal is not war, it is peace, and it is a peace in which we can devote our treasure and our muscle to better the condition of mankind. Yet we have not devoted sufficient attention to ways of achieving this goal or to its effects on our society. We need to increase our skills for peace, and this bill would help us to do so.

One important advantage of the proposed legislation is that it would give continuity to our Government's efforts and personnel in this area. In the past these responsibilities have tended to be given to ad hoc groups, thus losing the collective experience and skills of those who have worked on disarmament. S. 2180 would provide for essential continuity.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize the importance of study and planning of the economic aspects of disarmament. More than half of our national budget is presently devoted to support our military forces. Any substantial reduction in these expenditures is bound to have an immediate impact on our Nation's economy. Unless we are prepared for it, unless we have planned for it, the economic consequences could be grave.

Therefore, while S. 2180 lists the economic consequences of disarmament as one of the study objectives of the proposed Agency, we suggest that additional emphasis on this question should be written into the bill.

At its most recent convention, the AFL-CIO affirmed its support of continuing action to achieve armament reduction. It said, in its resolution on the international situation: "The AFL-CIO urges our Government to maintain a vigorous initiative and to be unsparing in its efforts to achieve a reduction of armaments on the road toward the abolition of all nuclear tests. We should see the prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction through an effective system of international inspection, supervision, and control."

We believe that the proposed U.S. Disarmament Agency would under this bill, have sufficient authority and sufficient importance within the Government to meet the challenges of disarmament. We believe the time to establish the authority and the Agency is now. We urge you to seek the prompt enactment of S. 2180.

Senator HUMPHREY. Now we have Mr. C. M. Stanley, who is from the Division of Peace and World Order of the General Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, Muscatine, Iowa, We welcome you.

You have your statement, Mr. Stanley, and may I suggest to you that if you would like to discuss any points that have not been raised in this hearing and file your statement, it will be just as well insofar as the committee is concerned. This committee will be carefully studying the record, and the record will be carefully studied by the staff of the committee. I act here as the recipient of information.

STATEMENT OF C. M. STANLEY, GENERAL BOARD OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL CONCERNS, METHODIST CHURCH

Mr. STANLEY. Senator Humphrey, it is a privilege to testify before this committee, and before you again in the chair. I will not read my statement. I would like to make a few comments with respect to it, and the important bill that is before you.

I speak as a private citizen, an engineer, and a businessman who, for some 15 years, has been active in various citizens organizations which have been seeking to prod the Government and to educate the public on the necessity of facing up to the kinds of matters that are dealt with in this bill.

I have had occasion in my business and professional work to make numerous trips abroad in the last 7 or 8 years.

I have witnessed the deterioration of the belief in Europe and in Africa and in other points of the sincerity in the United States' position on this important topic of disarmament.

IMPORTANCE OF BILL

This bill, if passed by this Congress, may well be the most important one that you deal with. It is not as spectacular, as accelerating the race for the moon, nor as appropriating $47 billion for defense.

It is important because it goes clearly to the heart of the most important problem that faces man today, the finding of a safe path to a secure peace in which freedom can survive.

To meet this high challenge, our objective must be nothing less than the abolition of the use of war by nations, and this requires the substitution of the use of law for the use of force on a world level.

Disarmament, in its broadest sense, would be the result of this process of substitution. In the past our efforts have been inadequate to cope with the complexities of disarmament. In the past we have responded rather than led in this important field.

The need of a separate agency to deal with this important task, I think, has been clearly demonstrated by others who have testified here.

It is most important, I think, as a matter of demonstration of our sincerity.

As Mr. Thomas has testified, it would be a calamity if, after the bipartisan support which has been demonstrated for this bill, it in any way fails in its enactment in this session of this, the 87th Congress.

It can be a demonstration not only to the Communist nations but to our allies and neutral nations that we are sincere in what we are working for in disarmament.

Therefore, I urge that this bill have prompt and favorable consideration by this committee, and that this Congress make it as one of its goals that it enact this bill before its adjournment. Thank you.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PROPOSED AGENCY

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley. I want to ask you one question.

In studying the bill, do you find the organizational structure of this bill meritorious or do you find it weak?

74094-61--14

Mr. STANLEY. Well, not being one skilled in Government, I have to look at it from a businessman's point of view. I think it is appropriate. I think it is most important that it be established in the high level position in which it is, where it can serve, as advisable, to the President and to the Secretary of State.

Senator HUMPHREY. We will see that your entire statement is made a part of the record.

I want to thank you very much in behalf of the committee. (The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley follows:)

STATEMENT BY C. M. STANLEY

I am C. M. Stanley of Muscatine, Iowa. I am a consulting engineer and businessman. I appear on behalf of the General Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church and more particularly of its Division of Peace and World Order. I am a member of both the board and the division and serve on the executive committee of each.

We endorse S. 2180, a bill to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security. This is perhaps the most important bill before the 87th Congress for it proposes a fresh approach to the greatest challenge facing man in the nuclear age; namely, the finding of a safe path to a secure peace in which freedom can thrive.

To meet this high challenge, our objective must be nothing less than the abolition of the use of war by nations. This requires the substitution of the use of law for the use of force on the world level. Disarmament, in its broadest sense, will be the result of this process of substitution.

This bill (S. 2180) if enacted into law will initiate the research and planning on disarmament that will allow us to work out an effective plan. We are long overdue on such "homework."

The proposed act (S. 2180) will create an organization charged by statute with the primary responsibility for research, formulation, and implementation of U.S. disarmament policy which will promote national security. It is needed at this time for the following reasons:

"PAST EFFORTS INADEQUATE”

1. Our past efforts have been inadequate to cope with the extreme complexities of disarmament. Until the creation of a small staff a year ago, the U.S. Government had no organization working continuously upon disarmament. The subject is so broad and difficult that it requires the continuing attention of competent and imaginative minds. So great is the desire of the peoples of the world for a secure peace, including disarmament, that we cannot ignore the subject.

"SEPARATE AGENCY NEEDED"

2. The task is too important and complex to be led to officials or departments charged with other day-to-day responsibilities. Disarmament deserves the long-range concentration which can only come from a separate Agency. The act wisely provides for coordination of the activities of the Agency with the President and the Secretary of State and for reports to Congress.