lated soon and introduced early in the new 94th Congress for consideration by the committee and ultimately the House of Representatives. of Representatives. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments. DECEMBER 10, 1974. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m. in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clement J. Zablocki (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. ZABLOCKI. The subcommittee will come to order. We have a very important piece of legislation on the floor, a continuing resolution, with certain amendments pending so the other members will be along shortly. Today the subcommittee begins the first in a series of five hearings on the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. This major indepth review was provided for in the full Foreign Affairs Committee report (No. 93-904) on the ACDA authorization for fiscal 1975. 1 As outlined in that report, a thorough examination of the Agency was deemed appropriate for several reasons. First, the Agency has never been subjected to a comprehensive review during the 13 years of its existence. Further, there are indications that Agency activities have, in several instances, veered away from original congressional intensions. Finally there is growing concern that ACDA no longer plays the role in the formulation and execution of U.S. arms control policies that it once did. Here this afternoon to help us in this important effort are three distinguished witnesses, all deeply experienced in the area of arms control and disarmament. They are: The Honorable John McCloy, former Chairman of the ACDA General Advisory Committee; the Honorable Adrian Fisher, Deputy Director of ACDA from 1961 to 1969 and now dean of the Georgetown University Law School; and Dr. Donald Brennan, Director of National Security Studies for the Hudson Institute and periodic consultant to the Agency. Mr. McCloy, we are very honored to welcome you, if you will proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. MCCLOY, FORMER CHAIRMAN, ACDA GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE John J. McCloy, former Chairman of the ACDA General Advisory Committee, has been a member of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy law firm since 1963. A native of Philadelphia, Dr. McCloy received his LL.D. from Amherst College. He has served as consultant to the Department of Defense and chairman of the board of various organizations. In addition to serving as President of the Ford Foundation from 1953-65. Dr. McCloy was Coordinator of U.S. disarmament activities from 1961-63. Mr. McCLOY. Mr. Chairman, I have had fairly short notice for preparing to appear before this committee. I had a rather busy schedule last week and I have prepared this statement that I have here rather hastily over the weekend. I apologize for its length. It is one of these situations where I didn't have time enough to make it shorter. Mr. ZABLOCKI. I certainly want to apologize for giving you such a short notice, but we know that your testimony, whether short or long, is very important and we welcome you. Mr. McCLOY. Let me perhaps just run through this and summarize it as well as I can rather than perhaps read the whole statement at length, although there might be one or two areas that I ought to expand on a little. I will do that, if that is satisfactory to you. I will dispense with my qualifications and I will start by saying that in regard to arms control and disarmament matters my experience is really just two positions which I have held, one was as adviser to President Kennedy on disarmament and the other was Chairman. of the General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament, but that Committee, as you know, was set up and provided for in the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1961. I find I have been the Chairman of that Committee longer than I thought I had been, but it was practically almost all its life, although I had reason to resign some time ago. I have read over the hearings, the reports of the hearings at the time 1961, and they are all, I think, appropriate to review at this stage. According to my best recollection and knowledge of this committee's reports that is, the Committee on Foreign Affairs reportsand the Committee of Foreign Relations reports as of the 1961 legislation they all give a very good picture, I think, of the origin and the purpose of the Arms Control Act. DIFFICULTIES IN CREATION OF ACDA There is one bit of history I thought I might dwell on for a moment that explains some things I believe in the act. President Kennedy, I think if you will recall, became very much concerned about the general position of the United States in regard to nuclear and thermonuclear power, and he made a number of speeches in the campaign; and then he also referred to the subject in some of his early state pronouncement after he was inaugurated, emphasizing the need of avoidance of an arms race, and emphasizing the need for what he felt was a more adequate type of agency within the Government to deal with the question of arms control and disarmament. He invited me to come to Washington to become, as he put it, his adviser, and then I had that title, but my mandate was really to help organize the thinking and the implementation which would result in an agency that was equipped to cope with new dimensions of the disarmament and arms control problem. This, as I say, had a very high place in his priority list, but somewhat to my surprise, after I had been working here some time on it, he came to me after having consulted the legislative leaders, and said he could not put this on his must list of legislation because he was not at all sure that such a radical type of legislation would be passed and didn't want to take the risks or at least he was advised that he should not take the risks that early in his administration on the passage or the failure to pass the Arms Control Act. APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR AGENCY In the course of the preparation of the material before setting up the agency we had a lot of questions as to where it would fit in the hierarchy of government. Many were urging a strong, independent, entirely autonomous agency, and others were rather concerned about this and the difficulties that might arise if it did have such autonomous authority. There was a very substantial element in both Houses at that time, as I recall it, who were quite skeptical of any legislation which would create a strong independent disarmament agency, because it might have important foreign policy and security implications; and there was a considerable amount of criticism coming from some of the existing agencies whose chief responsibility lay in the field of security and foreign affairs. There was also a feeling that this agency might get a little too insensitive, let's say, to the security needs of the country, that it might get a little too ideological or adopt too pacifistic tendencies and perhaps too uncritical acceptance of some of the propaganda that was then emanating in the world put out by the Soviets in urging complete disarmament. At any rate, the opposition as we sensed it at the time, and as the President sensed it at the time, was rather formidable; and accordingly, this bill was not placed on the President's must list, and we were told that it had to take its place in line and, so to speak, proceed on its own merits without the strong support of the administration itself. AGENCY WINS SUPPORT At that point we had done a good bit of spade work in this thing. I consulted many of the military figures with whom I had been associated during the war and found that their attitude was rather clear in regard to the need for such an agency, and the wisdom of this, and we were able to adduce quite a list of military leaders whose reputation and whose prestige was such that no one could attack their sensitivity to the necessity for security, and no one could really attack their objectivity when they urged the adoption of such legislation providing for the agency that was later created by the act. The result was a rather overwhelming vote in favor of the legislation, and I don't mean to say that there was not a great deal of support from other sources. I remember Senator Humphrey was a stalwart supporter, and Senator Clark, and others both in and out of Congress, but I am quite convinced that without the support of these military figures at that time, I doubt that as strong a bill as was passed could ever have been enacted, at least at that time. As a part of this general attitude and background, I think the provision, whereby the Director was to be subordinate to the State Department, and the Secretary of State was introduced into the bill, as well as the setting up of this Advisory Committee. CREATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE Indeed, according to my recollection, the Advisory Committee concept arose right here on the Hill. It was not in the original drafting, or if it was it was the suggestion that had been put forward by those in the Congress who felt that it was desirable to have a body composed of citizens not attached to the Government who would hopefully rely upon nonpartisan objectives and whose judgments those who were making the decisions on disarmament and arms control could rely. Those two features, therefore-the subordination to the Secretary of State on the one hand and the creation of the Advisory Committee on the other-were something of a counter to the general sentiment at that time which was somewhat skeptical of the wisdom of setting up a strong separate agency to deal exclusively with disarmament and arms control. I have listed here the names of some, perhaps not all, but certainly the bulk of the men, who did serve on the Advisory Committee during the period when I was chairman; a very distinguished group composed of scientific leaders, some of those that had been involved in developing our nuclear weaponry, statesmen of substance and character, former officials in the Government, and a number of very distinguished soldiers, journalists, and I suppose some that you just called good citizens with a good record of public service. FUNCTIONS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE The act provided that this committee should meet at least twice a year. It met more frequently than that, and its mandate was rather terrifying. It reads: "It"-that is the committee-"shall from time to time advise the President and the Secretary of State, and the Disarmament Director respecting matters affecting arms control, disarmament, and world peace." Now, of course, if advice in connection with arms control and disarmament raised questions in the mind of the Congress as to what role the committee should play in relation to the State Department, let's say, how much more does this inclusion of the words "and world peace" do so? As a matter of fact, although the tendency of this committee was to render advice in connection with, or be consulted in connection with the negotiations with the Soviet Union relating to specific treaties, I think quite properly from time to time the committee did include in some of its reports to its advisees, matters which did not relate certainly directly to arms control and disarmament; they dealt more generally with overall security of the country, the state of its alliances, and so forth. |