Mr. BROOMFIELD. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Doctor.

HEARINGS INDICATE CONCERN

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The questions that were asked of you indicate the concern as to what extent the Director of ACDA is consulted and towhat extent is his advice taken.

Indeed, the basic act clearly states that the Agency shall be headed by a Director who shall serve as the principal-the principal adviser to the Secretary of State and the President on arms control and disarmament matters. Of course, it all depends on who is the President and to what extent he actually carries out the letter of the law.

It is encouraging to hear that our present President, President Ford, from what you state, has in the short time that he has been in office indeed been fully cognizant of the provisions of the law.

Therefore, these hearings may further insure that what is a hope will actually be a reality and will continue. This is the very purpose of the hearings, because there was concern.

Unfortunately, with President Nixon, it appeared that the Director was not the principal adviser in these matters. Indeed, the Agency was being downgraded as exemplified by the cutback in the staff and the budget. Many of us did not want it to disappear entirely.

You need not comment on that, Dr. Ikle. I am not even going to ask you how often you saw President Nixon, because we are looking to the future.

ACDA AND PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES

I do have another question on a matter that I wonder if you care to share your views.

Last May, India exploded a nuclear device which it claims was a peaceful nuclear explosion. Many other countries are likewise interested in nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes. Indeed, our own country has tested peaceful applications of nuclear devices.

The question, Dr. Ikle: Is ACDA involved in this question of peaceful nuclear explosives, and what are the arms control implications? Mr. IKLE. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, as I noted before, we are very much involved. It comes up, for example, in the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which I intend to visit shortly. Through that Agency, there is effective cooperation among many countries imposing restrictions so that nuclear materials will not be diverted to nuclear explosives of any kind, whether called peaceful or military. This is just one arena of activity where we are involved. Also, as I believe I mentioned, the question comes up in connection with the threshold test ban. It comes up, too, in the question of domestic decisions on funding.

IMPACT STATEMENT ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY

Again back to the issue of the impact statement or the impact analysis which has been properly of interest in these hearings, I think this is a fine illustration of how a program which is not really a weapons program but a technological program can have a strong arms control impact.

I think it argues for allowing certain flexibility to the Director of ACDA in making it known to Members of Congress, whether it is a program in the Pentagon or in the AEC, or a program in the National Science Foundation.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I have three brief questions.

I say brief advisedly because yesterday one of our members had a simple question which it took an hour to answer.

Mr. IKLE. I will try to do better, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Dr. Ikle, you have stated that you have an input in the National Security Council, and you expect under this administration to have an input to a greater degree.

DIRECTOR'S ATTENDANCE AT NSC

But as I earlier stated, it depends on the President whether you have an input. Do you think it advisable that attendance of the Director of ACDA at the National Security Council should be required by statute?

Mr. IKLE. Just to give you an offhand personal reaction, Mr. Chairman, I think the essential thing is that the Director have access to the President on arms control and disarmament issues whether it is in writing or through personal meetings, and he should also be present at National Security Council meetings when arms control matters come up.

If entirely extraneous issues are discussed, I would not see any particular need for him to be present.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I have alluded to the deterioration of ACDA and previous witnesses before the subcommittee have repeatedly registered observations on the importance of adequate and effective staff work in ACDA. Some have noted that the staff work has deteriorated recently or that the Agency went into eclipse after SALT I.

The staff review on page 13 notes and I quote:

"It is difficult to see what the present top officers below the Director bring in the way of special skills, experience and motivation.”

QUALIFICATIONS OF ACDA STAFF

I do not want to imply that your counsel here is second rate. I will exclude all present company. Would you care to comment, Dr. Ikle, on your staff?

Do you feel that it is adequate or is our staff report in this particular instance in error? Since we have heard such high regard for the rest of the report I wonder if this observation on the part of the staff is an error. How correct are they?

Mr. IKLE. There are a few errors in this report including this one, but just a few.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Now, you have opened a few more questions.

Mr. IKLE. The qualifications of people aren't always worn on a ribbon or shown in the Whose Who. What is important is their dedication and their technical knowledge. I am fully satisfied, indeed, I am delighted, to see how the top staff, my assistant directors, my Deputy Director and my General Counsel are working together and are pulling ahead with me, bringing in their diverse and considerable talents to the job of the Agency.

I was fortunate to be able to bring in such excellent people, particularly at the time when it was necessary to fill the vacancies that I found when I became Director. As I recall, it was a period happily unique in our history, when it was not so easy to bring people to Washington. We were very successful and fortunate to bring in highly capable people to fill the vacancies that existed.

BACKGROUND OF TOP ECHELON STAFF

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Could you give specific instances of some of the staff, their specialties, their special skills, to disprove this portion of the report with concrete evidence?

Mr. IKLE. I will be pleased to go through the top echelon. Other than Mr. Malone who is sitting here with me the top Agency officers are my Deputy Director and the assistant directors.

The Deputy Director, Mr. J. Owen Zurhellen, is a Foreign Service officer as was Mr. Farley, with great competence and managerial skills. He uniquely complements my qualifications, or makes up for shortcomings for that matter. As you know, I have more of an academic background. He has a managerial background in the Foreign Service. My previous experience was in the substance of arms control. He had worked on management-the running of an embassy. Therefore, I have relied heavily on him and I have been highly successful in having an effectively managed agency and, of course, his substantive input is exceedingly valuable, too.

He happens to be one of the few Foreign Service officers completely fluent in Japanese. Our relations with the Japanese on arms control and disarmament issues are very important. The Japanese Government is very active on these issues. Mr. Zurhellen also knows a great deal about the Middle East, having worked there as Deputy Chief of Mission in Tel Aviv.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. You have sold him. Let us go to another one.

CALIBER OF PRESENT ASSISTANT DIRECTORS

Mr. IKLE. Then my assistant directors. Mr. Amrom H. Katz-Planning and Analysis Bureau-brought with him long experience and outstanding expertise in the arms control verification area, highly important to us. He has greatly enhanced the capability of the Agency in this area. He also has great understanding of substantive arms control issues and has, indeed, worked in the field longer than I. He began more than 20 years ago and has been the recipient of a number of signal honors for his accomplishments.

Mr. Robert M. Behr-Military-Economic Affairs Bureau-has been a senior staff member of the National Security Council. He has an exceptional knowledge of and finely honed ability to "get things done" within the executive branch, especially within the various military departments. He is most knowledgeable about military assistance. That is the kind of knowledge we need in order to have leverage on various issues.

Mr. Thomas D. Davies-Nuclear Weapons Technology Bureau-has been in the research and development field and he brings other important capabilities to bear on our work at ACDA. He has an excellent

technical background with particular reference to weapons systems. He brings from his service with the military an intimate appreciation of the workings of the Department of Defense allowing us to quickly and accurately acquire information essential to our work. In addition to all of this he is an excellent manager.

Then we had Mr. Robert H. Miller-International Relations Bureau-a Foreign Service officer, but unhappily we recently lost him. He was so good the State Department stole him from me and I now have a vacancy which I am in the process of filling.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Do you mean the State Department would resort to piracy?

Mr. IKLE. In a case of a Foreign Service officer, I think they have a special claim, especially when he is a good one. I think it only proves that we have excellent talent.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. You maintain that you have a blue ribbon organization.

Mr. IKLE. Definitely.

ERRORS IN COMMITTEE REPORT?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Doctor, you stated there were several other instances that the report was in error. So that we won't have to raise their salaries for the fine remarks they have heard about their efforts could you share with us some of the other areas in which the staff report may be in error?

Mr. IKLE. It is an excellent report. The other errors are minor. Let me try to recall them. I am not trying to be evasive. For instance, a concern expressed was that our report on arms transfers which was done pursuant to an amendment to the Foreign Relations Act of 1972 introduced by Senator Roth, was a kind of composite view.

If you will read the amendment that was what the amendment asked for-the Defense Department, State Department, and ACDA. In that way Congress properly got what it solicited.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I won't press you for any more examples of error right now. But if you have any other corrections we do want to have an honest appraisal. Obviously the staff prepared an excellent report, however, it is well to know if there are a few mistakes.

[The following was subsequently submitted for inclusion in the record:]

MINOR ERRORS IN REPORT AS CITED BY DR. FRED IKLE, DIRECTOR, ACDA

The review of arms control legislation and organization prepared by the staff of the subcommittee is an excellent report. Although ACDA does not necessarily agree with each and every one of the many conclusions and recommendations in the report, we recognize that they are intended to enhance the Agency's role and improve its operations.

There are, however, some minor errors in the report. In addition to what was mentioned by the Director in his testimony, there is the recommendation at the bottom of page 47 of the report which calls for reduction or elimination of the number of military officers (active or recently retired) in senior ACDA slots.

This recommendation is apparently based on the mistaken impression that military people are overly abundant or excessively influential in ACDA. Considering our need for the expertise which they possess in areas of interest to the Agency, ACDA actually has very few active duty and retired military personnel. In fiscal year 1974 the ratio of military positions to total positions was the lowest since the inception of the Agency. Although ACDA has added four military positions this year, the number of active duty military personnel, both as a percentage and in absolute terms, is still significantly under what it was during the years before Dr. Ikle became Director of the Agency. Only one active duty military officer is in what could be called a senior ACDA slot. As for retired military officers, there are only two in such positions in ACDA and the total number of military retirees is less than 32 percent of the Agency's staff.

Mr. IKLE. They made a very good point regarding the possible dilution throughout the report of the arms control effort in the Government, that if you have too many people working on the arms control issues, in a way you dilute the effort contrary to the intent of Congress in creating the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to provide a focus.

PROBLEM IN INTERAGENCY PROCESS

You asked me earlier about this interagency process. There is a problem. If other groups in the Government begin to preempt what ACDA was asked to do by Congress, then the intent of Congress will have been frustrated. That is not to say that we are afraid of competition and having arms control experts in the joint chiefs and the Defense Department and the State Department, but if these groups are too large we get duplication and we are just sending memos to each other all the time.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Dr. Ikle, I am sure you read or your attention was called to the testimony of Mr. Donald Brennan of the Hudson Institute who had some question, indeed it was not really a question, it was a criticism, of the way ACDA goes about the business of research contracts with private institutes.

He said he would not even accept a contract from ACDA in the future since some of the requirements and requests were requests that little old ladies would make.

I wonder if you could advise us whether that has been corrected.

HANDLING OF RESEARCH CONTRACTS

Mr. IKLE. Mr. Chairman, I am quite aware of the excessive redtape. I am keenly interested in cutting it down. My deputy, Mr. Zurhellen, has moved with me in the same direction. Also, we are contemplating some changes in the security classification requirements for contractors which I think will remedy the situation that Mr. Brennan referred to.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. He said it was much easier to get information or documents from the Defense Department and probably the information was certainly much more sensitive; it was implied that ACDA would not release something that was in the New York Times 4 months ago.