for the formulation of U.S. policy on the interrelated problems of disarmament and planning for peace. It should be empowered to plan practical steps toward total world disarmament and to develop detailed plans for the transition of the economy and for committing some resources released by disarmament for world development."

Mr. Chairman, I shall devote the remainder of my testimony to some reflections on the character of the new Agency, inspired by the remarks of a distinguished witness who appeared before your committee Monday. As reported in the New York Times of August 15, he endorsed the proposed Agency but warned that it might "be regarded as a mecca for a wide variety of screwballs. It would be a great pity to have this launched and then become a sort of 'bureau of beatniks.'

999

These remarks appear to have aroused laughter, and perhaps it is well that we can pause for mirth even in these somber times. However, they echo, in words exaggerated to the point of caricature, a view about the staffing of the new Agency which I have often heard expressed, and which appears to me to be profoundly mistaken. Some people seem very much afraid that it will be staffed by too many enthusiasts for disarmament. While I have not hitherto heard such enthusiasts characterized as "beatniks" or "screwballs," I have repeatedly heard the view expressed that the Agency's staff should be "balanced"—that is, apparently, have as many people on its staff opposed to disarmament as in favor of disarmament.

This view is, to say the least, contrary to long-established practice in American government. We expect our Department of Agriculture to be kindly disposed toward the farmers. We do not balance our Department of Labor with as many people opposed to the trade unions as for them. If there are people sincerely convinced that small business is a useless appendage of our economy, we do not expect to find them in the Small Business Administration. In other words, we expect people to believe in what they are doing. If there is an occasional excess of zeal, there are more than enough checks and balances in our system of government to balance it out.

If these considerations apply to such domestic branches of our Government, they are even more important for the Disarmament Agency. The resistances to the idea of disarmament are so strong in any government that the utmost determination is needed to overcome them. The "Pentagons" of all the world tend to see safety only in greater and greater accumulations of armed might. I do not blame them for this-it is their job. But their zeal, their dedication, and their enthusiasm is so great that it must be matched with an equal zeal, dedication, and enthusiasm in the Disarmament Agency.

Dedication is also required because of the intensely wearing, discouraging, and depressing character of negotiations with the Soviets. There is a tendency for people involved in such negotiations to wind up in a state of embitterment and utter despair. The going is so tough that a man can hardly expect to make any progress at all unless he starts with a considerable head of steam.

We need both intellectual creativity and dedication of purpose in this Agency-and in abundance. If a man has ideas, I hope he will be welcomed, even if his casual dress and perhaps his beard may lead some to label him a "beatnik." Likewise, if it is considered "screwball" to believe that disarmament can be achieved, I hope we do have such screwballs.

Indeed, I go further. As I see it, a man who does not believe in disarmament or does not believe in the feasibility of negotiating with the Russians has no place in such an Agency-there are plenty of other places for him, inside and outside Government.

At any rate, let us not have an Agency so painstakingly "balanced" that it reflects all the contradictory pressures and influences within the Government as a whole. Let us not have an Agency so "balanced" that it has no forward momentum at all. To be successful, it must be something of a spur-indeed, occasionally a nuisance to the Pentagon, the State Department, and even the White House.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by expressing the hope that the practice of borrowing staff members for this Agency from other departments of Government will be held to a minimum. At best, this will give the Agency something of the appearance of a makeshift, fly-by-night affair. At worst, it will load it with people whose interests and whose loyalties quite sincerely and however understandably-are centered elsewhere than on the task to which the Agency is committed.

In conclusion, ADA is delighted to join in the impressive bipartisan and nonpartisan support for this new Agency and we hope that it will be speedily established and get to work promptly.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. SCHUTZ, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, LOBBY FOR PEACE, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Senator HUMPHREY. Now, our next witness, Mr. Schutz, who is with the Lobby for Peace of Northern California, San Francisco, Calif.

We are very happy to have you here, sir.

Mr. SCHUTZ. Thank you, Senator.

My name is Robert Schutz, and I represent the Lobby for Peace of Northern California, a group of about 300 individuals who are so concerned about human survival that they are willing to pay me to represent them here, where decisions are made in this matter. I am an economist by profession, and have taught at the University of California and worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco before becoming the lobby's representative. The lobby was born, by the way, out of a series of 10 radio programs I put on the air in the winter of 1959-60 exploring the subject of human survival with the audience of KPFA, in Berkeley.

MAKING INTERNATIONAL NEGOTATIONS SOUNDER

We would ask you to vote for and to establish the Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security for four main reasons.

1. The first is to make international negotiations sounder, better based, better researched, better thought out. This has been eloquently pleaded in the testimony yesterday of our distinguished Secretary of State, so I won't labor this point further.

NEED FOR RESEARCH ON PEACE

2. Our second reason is partly tied in with the first, but it also stands on its own feet as a necessity if we are to have disarmament, if we are to have peace, if we are to have security, if we are to survive. The Agency should be established in order to research the dirty work of peace. Someone, some paid professional team, must work out the minutiae of inspection and control of disarmament; some team of professionals must think through the weaknesses and strengths of current proposals for world government; some group of paid, concerned, trained, intelligent people in whom you have confidence, gentlemen, must think through and present authoritatively what we will do with the savings from disarmament. There is nobody to do this job now but amateurs and dilettantes, operating sporadically with inadequate support, whose efforts are scattered to the four winds and carry little weight with anyone.

Let me give you three examples. We have a book by Seymour Melman of Columbia University entitled "Inspection for Disarmament." With all due respect for Professor Melman, who is an industrial engineer, and the 20 authors of the chapters of this brillant effort,

this is still an amateur thing, based on no classified material, and put together in great haste under pressure by people doing it in their spare time. Does it represent the best thinking we can do in this field? To the best of my knowledge, it is the only thing available that is comprehensive, and it is 3 years old. Prof. Jay Orear adds an idea or two in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists from time to time, but this has a circulation of 16,000, and it probably doesn't lie upon the Senators' desks.

As another example, we have a book by Professors Clark and Sohn entitled "World Peace Through World Law," which is one of the few serious efforts I know of to explore the problem of making a useful, workable effort at enforcing order on a world deprived of the inevitable destroyer of civilization, nuclear weapons. But it may not be the last work in such thinking. When I raised some of its points with Russians at a recent international conference, there seemed to be no comprehension of its points, let alone acceptance.

For another example, I can tell you, as an economist, or Professor Benoit, whom you have heard today, will tell you with more prestige and authority, that it will be one of the most dangerous things we can do to our economy to pour savings from disarmament into retiring the national debt. Yet many Senators speak as though we ought to do this, and 17 percent of people polled think paying off the national debt is a proper place for disarmament savings. It seems to me that it is important that Congress and the people as a whole hear this truth, if it is a truth, from an unimpeachable source in which they have confidence, like the Disarmament Agency. But I trench on my third point here, which is education.

EDUCATING COUNTRY ON FEASIBILITY OF IDEAS FOR PEACE AND

DISARMAMENT

3. We believe in the third place that the Congress should establish the Disarmament Agency in order to educate the country on the feasibility of various ideas which have to do with war, disarmament, and peace. Where is the counterpart in the field of disarmament and peace to that book by Herman Kahn, "On Thermonuclear War," a bock produced at the Rand Corp. which is financed by $13 million of Air Force money every year? Kahn looks through the third world war and glibly talks of recovery after 60 million dead.

Lay aside for the moment the fact that this book is a moral atrocity. It just happens that I, and a good many other people more expert than I, don't think he's right. We think it is probable that we cannot fight such a war and survive as a nation. But who has researched this, and published a widely read book from another point of view? This is not what I would expect from the Rand Corp., or the AEC, or the Pentagon. But maybe it can be done.

And if another point of view is right, and Kahn is wrong, we won't be any less dead as a nation and a civilization for having been ignorant. Someone might even be able to research and present a convincing case on how this Nation can survive without any war at all, or any casualties from war. I would like to see this book, before I die in world. war III. But this, again leads me on to my fourth and last point.

PROVIDING A FOCAL POINT FOR LISTENING TO IDEAS FROM AMERICAN PUBLIC

4. We believe the Disarmament Agency should be established in order to present an ear to the public from a high position in the Government on the problems of disarmament and peace, in order to take such ideas in with sympathy, to give them a fair hearing and a cordial reception, to research them thoroughly, and to incorporate the sound ones into public thinking, and policy proposals.

I was here yesterday afternoon when Mr. Lovett, for whom I have respect, voiced his unfortunate fears that beatniks and pacifists would flood the Agency. And I was duly grateful for your prompt rescue of this situation, Senator Humphrey, especially in view of the unwarranted attention given these fears by the press. There is no question but that personnel of this Agency will have the very life screened out of them. In fact, there is real danger of mediocrity in it just because of such unwarranted fears as were expressed here yesterday afternoon. But again, the Rand Corp. has researched the origin of new and good ideas, and found that 95 percent of them come from offbeat people and organizations, even though 95 percent of these people and organizations are no good. We would hope that the Disarmament Agency would provide a sympathetic focal point for listening to good ideas and bad on the subjects of disarmament and peace. They will come from thousands of good people, some of whom may look like beatniks, or pacifists, or crackpots who will be living in the universities, or the dumps, or the poet's attic anywhere in the world, and who are thinking hard and deep about this problem as they've never thought about anything in their lives. Somewhere, someone may find a valuable idea, one that will save us.

U.S. LEADERSHIP THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF DISARMAMENT AGENCY

I have heard the Senators query the witness in this chair as to whether another country in the world has a disarmament agency, and it seems that other countries do not. But this is an area in which the United States of America can afford to give leadership to the whole world. We are strong. We are powerful. We are rich. All human beings will look to us with gratitude if we take this initiative to solve mankind's common problem, the arms race which faces us all with the face of the dinosaur.

Thank you, sir, for this time.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much for your statement. I can well see why you are representing the group.

Mr. SCHUTZ. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HUMPHREY. I know that your group is fully aware of this proposed legislation, and I trust that you will make them aware of the details of the bill.

Mr. SCHUTZ. Yes, indeed.

Senator HUMPHREY. Because if this bill should be passed, and I hope it will become law, then I think there will be a time when we shall want some changes in the process of growing, and we welcome some constructive ideas, even if they are from "way out."

Mr SCHUTZ. Thank you.

Senator HUMPHREY. Is there anyone else to be heard?

(No response.)

Senator HUMPHREY. We shall conclude the hearings today, and we shall hold this record open for 10 days.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator HUMPHREY. We shall hold this record open until Friday next. I would like the record to show that letters and communications that are expressly directed toward this bill will be included as part of this testimony.

We are recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the committee was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)