In addition to his personal concern and professional writings in the area of disarmament, Professor Osgood serves as chairman of the American Psychological Association's Committee on Psychology in National and International Affairs. He will also take office as president-elect of the American Psychological Association immediately following our September 1961 meetings. Dr. Osgood's convictions about the importance of behavioral science research in the area of arms control and disarmament are shared by many of my colleagues, although this letter is not presented as an "official" position of this association. I beg leave to have this document entered in the record of hearings on Senate bill 2180. I can assure you of the concern of my colleagues for a broadly based program of research that will contribute to the important endeavor to which this bill speaks. Yours sincerely, JOHN G. DARLEY, Executive Officer. INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, THE PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: As you know, a number of bills aimed at establishing a National Disarmament (or Peace) Agency have been submitted in both the House and the Senate and are now in the process of consideration by various administrative agencies and committees. The general purpose of my letter is to urge that you give your full support to a bill that will provide the most effective and viable Agency possible. If I were to ask-Do you think 1 cent out of every defense dollar is too much to spend for peace?-I am sure you would answer "No." Yet, the total amount now being devoted to research on all alternatives other than a military resolution is less than 1 percent of the defense budget. I realize that over the short term building up our military strength is necessary to deter aggression. But I must point out that there is no military, technological defense against nuclear weapons should the psychological buffer of deterrence fail. Furthermore, I am sure you will agree that it is inconceivable for us to remain everlastingly poised for mutual destruction-yet the policy of mutual deterrence offers no provision for its own conclusion. For these and other reasons, it is essential that we begin now to search for feasible alternatives to war. A National Disarmament (or Peace) Agency will not only provide the focus for this search, it will also give unambiguous notice to the world that we mean business on peace-if the Agency is made strong and viable. I have one specific suggestion to make on the research aspects of such an Agency. Although it is important that the scientific research necessary to backstop our test-ban and disarmament negotiations be included within the Agency, this is not the only, nor in the long run even the most important, research that should be undertaken. High on the priority list of such an Agency should be (1) development and evaluation of techniques of controlling international tension levels and study of ways and means of eliminating the social, economic, and political causes of war; (2) intensive investigation of the economic impact of arms control and disarmament, including techniques for easing adjustment to these changes; (3) development and evaluation of techniques for improving international communication and understanding. I ask you to support a broad conception of such an Agency as well as its establishment on a firm basis. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. OSGOOD, Director. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SEYMOUR HALPERN, FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, I truly appreciate the privilege of appearing before this committee on behalf of S. 2180, companion legislation to which I have introduced in the House, my bill being H.R. 7938. I am particularly pleased to testify in support of this bill because of my strong convictions on, and close identity with, this legislation. I was privileged indeed to join my colleague, Hon. Robert Kastenmeier, and others in the House, in the highly desirous objective of establishing a Disarmament Agency and thus I have introduced identical legislation. Ever since I have been in Congress, I have been concerned with the possibility of organizing our Government in a more effective manner for the purpose of planning and studying means for achieving a more peaceful world. In conjunction with a number of my fellow Congressmen, I have sponsored bills which would have authorized research on disarmament and arms control. In addition, this legislation would have studied means for reducing political and other tensions which stimulate the spiraling arms race. These earlier proposals, like the legislation now under consideration, advocated the establishment of an advisory council appointed by the President, research on economic impact of disarmament, training of personnel for control functions, and annual reports to Congress. All of these measures were in response to the vast need, which many of us felt, for a focal point of effort within the Government to design ways by which we might achieve a more stable and peaceful world. In general, there has been a necessity for hard facts before we could build a sensible policy on disarmament and other related world issues. The legislation that you are considering today would serve all of the functions of the earlier proposals with one important improvement-that the Director of the proposed agency shall report both to the Secretary of State and to the President, and this provision in the bill assures that the results of the research and study carried out by this new agency and the policies resulting from its work will have a practical day-to-date impact upon our constant negotiations concerning this matter. In June of this year, I enjoyed the privilege of discussing this legislation with the President and his disarmament adviser, Mr. John J. McCloy, together with other Congressmen particularly interested in this subject. I became convinced that the proposals of the legislation, which I subsequently introduced, combine, to an unusual degree, the need for farsighted planning and the need for practical day-to-day dealings with this problem. In view of the primary jurisdiction of the Secretary of State over negotiations, it is essential that the Director be responsible to the Secretary in this regard, and therefore section 34 of this bill emphasizes such a relationship. The same emphasis is placed upon the relationship of the Director to the Secretary in section 35, providing information to the USIA with respect to disarmament as it effects our foreign information program. But, in the last analysis only the President can coordinate research and development in this field as it effects other agencies of the Government, and only the President can make the final decisions affecting disarmament, decisions which would, in effect, create national policy. Therefore, it seems to me a practical necessity that the Director serve as the principal adviser to the President on disarmament matters, and provision for this is made in section 22 of the bill. I understand from recent testimony of my distinguished colleague, the Honorable Walter Judd, that a similar right to go to the President, enjoyed by the Director of the Economic Cooperation Administration, Mr. Paul Hoffman, was essential and highly effective in permitting him to carry out the duties of that office during the late 1940's. I am sure it will have a similar, highly practical and beneficial effect in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, again I support this legislation not simply because it will permit us to deal with our current negotiations more effectively, but because it offers hope in the years ahead of us that we may be able to devise a practical program to end the arms race, to reduce tension, and to begin to create a more rational and a safer world. No one should minimize the need for firm determination to meet the current crisis and the similar crises which we may expect to follow. To consider the massing of arms and to determine to use them as our only hope for the future would be to fail in our fundamental duty as legislators to plan wisely for a more hopeful tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I heartily and urgently appeal for the early approval of this legislation. Obviously, the need for such an agency could not be greater than at this most critical moment. Congress should act immediately to pass this legislation and reduce the chances for a world holocaust. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, CHESTERTON, IND., August 22, 1961. MR. CHAIRMAN AND HONORABLE SENATORS: I have just received Senator Fulbright's and Senator Humphrey's letters explaining the hearings on S. 2180, the Disarmament Act for World Peace and Security. I wish to express my thanks and to offer the following statement for the record, and for your patient consideration: Of the 180 million whom you represent in Congress I wish to present the views of one; namely me. I learned to shoot in the Rocky Mountains of western Colorado, at the age of 8, back in 1907. The real know-how was how not to carry too much gun over them there hills on a long journey. That's what this paper's about. Well, I've been learning armaments the hard way ever since. If the committee wants the details I shall try to supply them later. I have just received from Senator Humphrey, the text of the bill, the Senator's address to the Senate, and Mr. McCloy's letter. May I express my overall feelings by use of the "short title"-Pleased! But I wish to call it to your attention, in case you have not noticed, that news of the hearings on this bill were relegated to the back pages, and all but smothered out by the explosive Berlin situation, and the barriers at the Brandenburg Gate. But Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, this coincidence brings sharply to the attention of us who are in the know from too-long years, and too many years of bitter experience, that certain types of disarmament right here at home, were never more timely, or needful, than right now. We need to strip for battle action. We should not wait for Mr. Khrushchev to tell us. We have heard a great deal in the past about being unprepared, with too little and too late. Have we ever been told about too much in the wrong places, at the wrong time, and how much not only America, but all the world has suffered from this I mean suffered from America's stupid part in it? We need not only to reduce, but to break a lot of bad habits, from overfeeding. I don't know whether a Cabinet office can clean this up, or whether a joint committee of Congress should clear a path through the dirt first. I am referring to the international arms racket. I am hoping that this new Cabinet office and the national Congress together are going to make it their business to go into the whole history of this, and its relation to war and peace. May I cite a few reputed examples starting from too long back? How many of them are true? I don't know. I know only what I see, hear, and read about. I do know, or at least believe, that only Government has the means and facilities for getting to the bottom of these truths; and that their bearing on what is done now, and in the near future, can be more important than the whole defense budget. Did we find it necessary in the Civil War to supply the western armies of the North with $3 million worth of condemned arms, capable of blowing the heads off the shooters, instead of those shot at? This in order to establish J. P. Morgan in business. This was very fine from half of my viewpoint, but I come half from the South-the camp of the enemy. You damned Yankees should have fought the whole war like that. But the northern half of me rebels in the end, worse than the southern half did in the beginning. I want to know if this is still going on. Is it any wonder old Nik thinks he can bury us? He knows of later examples. I'll try to get to them later. These are questions of armament-of disarmament, I hope. In August 1914, was World War I delayed 4 days in order for the De Wendel Arms Corp. of France to deliver a shipment of arms from France to the Krupps arms people in Germany, in order for the De Wendels to get their money? A few short months later, in every public meeting place in America-every church, every school, every theater-4-minute talks were delivered at regular intervals, informing the American public of a terrible underwater machine called a submarine, and what we must do to counteract it. Must some of us later live through the influenza to learn that the boilers were built in Chicago? Could we dream we must live to be told that the electric equipment was designed, built, and even installed, in some cases, by our own dear Electric Boat Co. These are questions of armament. Disarmament? Did we really enter that war to end wars in 1917, or were we up to the hilt in it before Woodrow Wilson ever took office in 1912, through a blitzkrieg mass production of mechanized warfare, in the form of material sales? Did we really fight against the Kaiser and the Huns, or Browning machineguns from America, and motortrucks from Detroit? Surely most of you know the story of the Gatling gun captured in Germany, at a cost in human life of most of the young men from an English town; how the captured gun was taken to England, and mounted in the park as a memorial; and how as the years passed the paint wore off, revealing the name of the English manufacturer, who had sold the gun to the Germans. These are questions in armament, which need to be dealt with at home, first, even though very late. World War II-but first the depression. The world sagged, slumped, and collapsed in economic troubles. In the United States, 11 million people lost everything they had-or were they robbed? What became of their wealth? It was a world of poverty from too much of this world's goods. Germany had not been allowed to rearm-was not already overburdened with arms. Here was a good, safe sinkhole in which to dump surplus materials, war materials. Loans were floated, bonds sold, secretly admitted to be not worth the paper they were written on, by the powerful interests who promoted them here and in Britain, but who collected their commissions in cash. This worthless paper was blown up into more worthless paper, the manipulators getting their take in gold. America, England, and then half of Europe began dumping mountains of surplus into this hole. The great Pilsen Arms plant slid over the brink, taking Czechoslovakia with it. This sink-hole became a heap, and the heap exploded into a volcano. Now, wasn't that the real World War II? Hasn't it been the real war all along? Isn't it the real war now? Autocracy, democracy, Hitler, the Kaiser, Khrushchev, nazism, fascism, imperialism, socialism, communism, capitalism, etc., etc., etc. Are these real factors, or just window dressing? Nor is this any abstract war to be prevented or even a cold war. It's as hot as a packet of firecrackers, with more explosions to come. This is a fire that has raged unchecked for more than 40 years-and with all humanity persistently pouring on fuel, in the nature of mechanized armaments of every kind and description. This is a suicidal race with the United States in the lead, at this time. America seems to lead in industrial production, the main fuel line, and in supplying arms to our enemies. In the Korean war continuous reports came back of soldiers fighting our latest weapons in the hands of the Chinese Reds. It was suggested that the Chinese obtained them through the port of Hong Kong. Is it just possible, or just isn't it possible that the Russians got the atom bomb, lock, stock, and barrel, including material and technical help, from a British-American-Belgian syndicate, operating in the Belgian Congo, at a time, or near the time when the Rosenberg case was being handled in a manner borrowed from the Dark Ages, and the American public was being entertained in the newspapers over loss of a fraction of an ounce of U-235 lost by the Argonne Laboratory? I do not know that the above cases, from the Civil War on, are all true. I probably could not prove any of them in court. I do know that I believe they might all be true, and many more like them. I believe that as a citizen I have been a little lax heretofore, in not reporting all of them to an agency of the Government-what agency, up to now? Now, what is the name and nature of this monster? It is modern industrialism on the loose, at a highly accelerating speed, without a governor, without a driver, completely out of control. No nation, or group, or individual can be held responsible now, not even Eichmann. It's a case of trying to find people, any people, any place, on the face of the earth, who are willing to assume responsibility. Countless lives are being lost now, countless others ruined, and all humanity threatened. The name of this thing is war economy. The Russians have it, too, all monkey talk of their system differing from ours notwithstanding. Every nation in the world, small and large, is caught in it. We are all in the same little boat. Nobody is getting out first, or ahead. We, the people of the United States-what to do right now if the thing explodes again in our face? It just might-I hope not. What do we have that we need right now? What do we need that we have? Could we use a Maginot line if we had one? Do we really need any? What if we should awaken in the morning, to find that we, the people, were surrounded, interlaced, hemmed in, and hamstrung with Maginot lines-of our own, that is, say about $47 billion worth? It did happen once, to the French-and it could happen here. I "haint" saying we is got that-and I isn't saying we "haint." This danger is, or might become imminent, if, and to the extent that the whole defense budget should become permeated with pork barrel schemes. Under our present organization that could happen. I do not say that it will, or would. Honorable Members of the U.S. Senate, I have not meant to beat around the bush. If I have done that I am sorry. Up to now, I have questioned, suggested, and hinted on matters that probably nobody knows without full investigation, and such investigation has been woefully lacking. I have interpreted disarmament in terms of getting rid of arms production, of the type that defends nobody and imperils all humanity. A peace agency in itself, and subject to immediate call, should be the U.S. Army. I am not about to want to disarm it. It should be called up now-and given a shaking. But, members of this committee and the Senate, I wish to inform you without any quibbling or question on my part, but as an absolute fact, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the U.S. Army is bogged down in the mire of pork barrel schemes, and not at this time stripped for battle action. This could engulf the whole defense system, in my opinion. I am blaming poor organization, not persons. But this is at a time of mortal peril to the Nation. If there is to be any hope of peace, this must not go on. (Even the above must be stated as opinion.) Webster's Dictionary, the Merriam unabridged, defines pork barrel as a fund for such things as "rivers and harbors." Rivers and harbors have been the prerogative of Army engineers for generations. But there is absolutely no place. for private loot in a modern army. Everything mentioned in this paper- . everything that happened in Nazi Germany could be due to the unholy alliance between the military and private business. I urge a careful examination of the reasons the Army engineers were taken out of TVA, if the Government still has the records, or can get them, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's opinions at that time. This and similar present-day happenings should be the subject of not one, but several, congressional investigations and inquiries. I wish to cite specifically the Florida swamps and the Indiana Burns Ditch Harbor. (See Harper's magazine, February 1959, p. 77, and Louisville Courier, July 23, 1961, p. 4, sec. 4; also St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 15, 1959, but I cannot cite it.) Article enclosed herein. I will have to send same later if I can find it. There is a later article concerning ex-Senator Jenner. DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: Please make the enclosed letter a part of the committee hearings on S. 2180, the bill to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency. Sincerely yours, PATRICK E. GORMAN, Secretary-Treasurer. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, OF NORTH AMERICA, Chicago, Ill., August 23, 1961. Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: On behalf of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen (AFL-CIO), I should like to inform you of our strong support of S. 2180, the bill to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency. An agency which will plan for disarmament will undoubtedly be one of the most vital agencies of the Federal Government. It would be an agency which would play a major role in making possible the goal which all of the American people desire-universal peace. It may perhaps seem a bit contradictory to call for a disarmament agency at this time when crisis follows crisis on the international scene. We believe this is not so. A disarmament agency is more vital today than at any other time. |