greater newspaper coverage of the negotiations at Geneva. We attended the Seventh Conference on World Disarmament and Development here in Washington on April 10-11 and reported on the discussion of stabilized deterrence heard there.

NEED FOR LONG-TERM GOVERNMENT PLANNING FOR DISARMAMENT

We became aware of the new expert, the "technocrat" at work in this complicated subject expressed in the American assemblies at Arden House, the arms control issue of Daedalus, the establishment of the Peace Research Institute. However, none of these articles or conferences or books or research studies can or should fill the need for long-term Government planning, discussion, and programing which develops knowledge of technical and political problems over the years. As citzens trying to bridge the gap between the scientist and the scientifically illiterate, we are aware of the contrast between an older pacifism which took little account of the realities of power and the new "technocrats" often obsessed with charts and game theories and mathematical presentations of possibilities which may come to speak of units rather than human beings. A disarmament agency can combine a response to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" which results in techniques of arms control and disarmament acceptable to statesmen and capable of implementation.

With the conviction that we could not know or predict what the Russians would or would not do, but committed to the need that our own country strive in every way toward disarmament, 18 of us came to Washington for talks with a staff member of this Senate committee and officials of the Disarmament Administration now in the Department of State.

NEED FOR WORK ON DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL

From all this we have concern about the following: First, that the United States does not now have machinery for the full-time or longterm employment of scientists to carry out development of inspection or control systems. This work has been undertaken by the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission, both of which have other primary responsibilities.

Secondly, we do not now have social scientists at work on the disarmament problem, men who understand something of social systems, of how people may interact. As far as we know, neither the Council of Scientific Advisers nor the present Disarmament Administration staff includes sociologists or psychologists. This world presents us with the problem of the power of societies, how they function, how the question of trust or lack of trust may be got around, how conflicts may be resolved.

Finally, Ambassador Stevenson has spoken in the United Nations on the subjects of effects on economies which would be brought about by arms cuts. Some 10 countries are now engaged in the United Nations in exploring what the effects of such arms' cuts might be on their economies. Yet we are citizens who do not know of any commission which has been appointed, made up of people in and out of Government, which is examining how the United States could meet the economic consequences of disarmament.

We want, in short, to see a Disarmament Agency within our Government, accepted by the Congress, strong enough to grow within the structure of Government, at work with other departments.

We agree with the Air Force and Space Digest magazine of May 1961:

We need serious, hard, inventive, imaginative, massive, expensive work on the subject of disarmament and arms control.

Thank you.

Senator HUMPHREY. I want to thank you very much for your

statement.

Mrs. WING. May I say just one more thing, Senator?
Senator HUMPHREY. Yes.

NEED FOR EXPANDED COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE OF DISARMAMENT MATTERS

Mrs. WING. I think we feel, since we have been on the community level in Baltimore, and in other communities in Maryland, in which we have done such things as interview the library staffed with a bibliography of new works in this field, talked to editors, discussed with citizens who have represented other local organizations, we feel that the impact of this Agency on that kind of work will be enormous, even the proposal to have it exist. We think that news coverage will change. We find that most people are not aware of the Daedalus kind of thinking, that most people are not aware of any of the possibilities of research in this field, such as Mr. Larsen described this morning. We think that this has been largely left either in the realm of church "do-gooders" in most of the population, or groups with labels whom the rest of the citizens consider to be far out. In other words, this has not been something which the average person with an education and with a great stake in our society felt was any subject which could be approached, thought about, and acted upon in a meaningful fashion, and I believe that if the Agency does that, just a proposed bill, it will be a tremendous breakthrough in communities across the country. For that reason, too, Senator, we certainly want to say to you as a community group, we heartily are in favor of this proposal.

Senator HUMPHREY. I thank you very much, Mrs. Wing. I want to express my thanks, and I know I speak for the committee, for what your community organization has done. I am very familiar with what you have done and it is very heartening.

You know, our Subcommittee on Disarmament, I think, started to change some of the attitudes in certain parts of the United States. We gathered together for the first time a bibliography on disarmament materials, studies on the history of disarmament, such as you have done in your conference group. This is what we need.

I shall never forget a weekend that I spent in Florida over Easter. This is the period when if Christian people are ever going to exhibit a religious reaction and spirit, it is over that particular holy week or holy period. Yet, in the newspapers of that weekend, and I have the clippings, there were eight leading news stories in 3 days where spokesmen of this country were talking about what we would do to this country and that country, because there were hearings going on in Washington and talks about how much this country could be devastated and how much others could. I could not help but think

that the Easter sermons were much needed. We surely needed to be thinking about resurrection in the light of what was about to happen to everybody.

And I could not then help but think what other people in the world must think. Mrs. Humphrey and I went to Moscow in the winter of 1958. I do not want this to be misunderstood, because we know of the military preparations of the Soviets, and, for example, we now see Mikoyan over in Japan threatening the Japanese. We see the massive brutality exhibited by their leaders.

Yet, every single day we were in Moscow, there was nothing but talk of peace. There was printed on the walls "peace." On the few signs they had-they do not have billboards like we have-there was "peace." I was in the offices of Khrushchev, of the top military people. I never did see one single missile, nor not one single military device. I saw their television programs that ended up with the dove of peace.

The first night we were home, in New York, we were looking at television and the rockets were going off, the planes were going off, and the guns were shooting.

We make ourselves look bad. The churches and synagogues and temples are filled with people praying for peace, and people are very sincere about this. We have people like yourself and thousands more who work for it. Then we insist upon demonstrating to the world that we do not mean it, by a constant avalanche of riotous publicity. This is an unbelievable thing. We are almost sadists; we almost try to destroy ourselves. I do not know what we can do about it.

Mrs. WING. Senator, I think this Agency gives a sense of future, and the word "future" is a tremendous word that seems to have perhaps been pushed back. I think, too, that we can see some of the results in the increase in vandalism, alcoholism, in the use of tranquilizers, the dropouts from college of bright, well-motivated boys. I think we may experience some changes which no Government agency up to now has perhaps seriously considered.

This Agency again, as you say, hauls out a hope of a future and of a use of creativity of the American people released toward building a creative future, instead of violence. We need it. Our own people need it, not just the rest of the world looking at our image. I do agree with that.

Senator HUMPHREY. I think that is very well put.

There are many observations and reflections one could make on this. I want to say that if the American medical profession did not do any better in searching for answers to disease than the Americans did in searching for answers to war, we would have long ago declared it an un-American activity. That is a fact. We look at the pharmaceutical houses and at the chemical houses, and we look upon the great doctors and respect them primarily because of their relentless search for the unknown, for the answer to the incurable diseases.

I remember, when I went to pharmacy school, we had what we called certain specifics, certain drugs that had a particular action on a particular disease. When were those specifics discovered? In the last century. Up until a hundred years ago, there were literally no cures for certain diseases. We would not tolerate that now.

74094-61--18

We have an appropriation of nearly a billion dollars for medical research in the National Institutes of Health. I think maybe it is not too much; it may be a little too short. Everybody cheers it except a few budgeteers; everybody wants an answer to cancer. Well, I think somebody was quite modest here awhile ago. Cancer would look like just a mild cold compared to what would happen in a nuclear war. Yet we let our Government go without really searching for these answers. We give them a sort of "lost weekend" treatment, get a few boys around the table, do a little research, prepare a position paper and argue with the Russians.

We have sought to win debates with these Russians, I want to tell you, rather than really find answers. I have never been much for debating the Russians. I have always felt that was more or less a waste of time. I think what we ought to do is come up with propositions that are sound and surround the Russians with a body of public opinion that even they cannot ignore.

Thank you. That is my speech for today.

Mrs. WING. Thank you.

Senator HUMPHREY. I want to thank the Marylanders for coming, not only for the number who are here, but also for their charm. Our next witness is Dr. William J. Nagle.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. NAGLE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WARFARE, CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Senator HUMPHREY. Dr. Nagle, proceed. We want to welcome you as a representative of a great organization here.

Mr. NAGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement is a brief one, and perhaps I can make it even briefer.

The Catholic Association for International Peace endorses with enthusiasm S. 2180 and its House counterpart, H.R. 7936, to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security, and urges as strongly as it can the passage of the bill before Congress adjourns. The CAIP was established 34 years ago to promote sound principles of international relations. It is the only Catholic organization in the United States devoted entirely and exclusively to the international field. In 1953 the CAIP's World Order Committee went on record in support of some of the disarmament resolutions then being considered by Committees of Congress. In more recent years the annual conferences and committee meetings of the CAIP have devoted increasing attention to the problems of arms control and disarmament.

Senator HUMPHREY. By the way, I want to thank you for your position in advocating repeal of the Connally amendment.

Mr. NAGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We want to thank you for your position on the Connally amendment and almost every other worthwhile thing that has gone on in Congress in regard to the international field for at least as long as you have been here in the Senate. Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. NAGLE. We are in complete agreement with most of the major arguments that have been advanced for creation of the Disarmament Agency. We have long been convinced of the crucial need for a coordinating agency with clear-cut authority for U.S. disarmament

efforts. We are familiar with the work being done on disarmament at various university research centers in the United States, and we think that some of these valuable studies have not been fully utilized by the Government simply through the lack of a central coordinating governmental authority whose major responsibility is disarmament.

PERSONNEL WORKING ON DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS

Until quite recently, as former CAIP Vice President Norma Krause Herzfeld pointed out in her nationally syndicated column:

We have kept no more than a handful of experts working—usually part time— on disarmament proposals, implying that we give less importance to this subject on high Government levels than to the matter of starling removal in the District of Columbia.

Senator HUMPHREY. There are fewer people that have been working on disarmament in this Government than work on traffic control in any State in the Union. I realize that the modern automobile driver has pretty deadly aim; he can catch most people. But if you just put this thing in proper focus, it is almost ludicrous.

Mr. NAGLE. It certainly is.

Senator HUMPHREY. You can go to any one of the 50 sovereign States in this great Republic, and there will be more people in the highway departments in State, county, and local governments working on traffic control than there are in the entire Government of the United States and all the agencies thereof that are working on the subject of disarmament, or have worked on it in the last 50 years. I think we have done quite well to get as far as we have.

Mr. NAGLE. Yes, I think we have, thanks to you and your colleagues. Senator HUMPHREY. By the way, did we get rid of those starlings? Mr. NAGLE. I do not know; I think not.

LACK OF CLEAR-CUT AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY IN DISARMAMENT FIELD

Within the Government, the lack of clear-cut authority and responsibility in this field has proven a major handicap to our disarmament efforts.

Often in the past when agreement seemed possible with Russiawrote Mrs. Herzfeld:

internal disagreements among the Armed Forces, CIA, Atomic Energy Commission and the State Department have kept us from making important policy decisions.

As the bill being considered by the Foreign Relations Committee is written, the new Agency should be able to achieve the coordination that has been so badly needed in the formulation and implementation of U.S. disarmament policies.

RELATIONSHIP OF BERLIN SITUATION TO DISARMAMENT AGENCY

The present crises in Berlin and other areas make it more important than ever that in this session Congress pass the Disarmament Agency bill and provide the funds to make the new agency operative as rapidly as possible. Passage of the bill at this time could have nothing but