The administration's contract policy in the Pacific Northwest is partially justifed, at least, by the peculiar circumstances of power production, distribution, and consumption out there. And the meaning and implications of the so-called partnership plan for neither easy to hydropower projects are understand nor to express, pro or con, in simple terms.

The point is that although the Elserower administration is polically vulnerable on the power issue, it is apparently trying recover from a bad start. And it has steppe. back to a middle-of-the-road position on some explosive questions enough to protect itself against the crippling charge of "giveaway." An example of this is in the accel erated engineering studies to provide some Government dam construction on the moot Snake River below the bitterly fought-over Hells Canyon site.

Then along comes this clumsy effort to clamp down on any expansion of the IVA

We do not agree with the adverse connota tion in the President's now-famous epithet for the TVA as an example of "creeping socialism," and a "monstrosity." But assuredly the President is entitled to his opinion and to his proposal for a "study of TVA's future," as be indicated would be made in the future. But the Milwaukee Journal, commenting on the AEC-TVA deal, asked two questions which were made to order for Mr. LANGER and other critics of the administration's power policy:

"Isn't the strange order telling AEC to negotiate with the private combine preJudging TVA's place in the future? And even if one accepted the idea of TVA critics that the project is creeping socialism' and a "monstrosity. Isn't the new proposal merely creating another 'monstrosity supported by the creeping socialism' of full subsidy?"

A5331

Security Provisions of Atomic Energy Act

SPEECH OF

HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON

UP CONNECTICUT

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, July 23, 1954

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9757) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the security provisions of H. P. 9757.

A5332

I believe my colleagues in the House are familiar with my interest in the broad field of security in all its varied aspects.

My experience in the Government service, in the military service, and in my service on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has given me an oppor

tunity to study the problem of securityin terms of its statutory foundation, its procedural structure, and its effectiveness in practice.

The joint committee has a Subcommittee on Security. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. JENKINS) and the gentleman from California (Mr. HOLIFIELD] both serve on this subcommittee. It has been my honor and privilege to serve as chairman of this subcommittee. Senator PASTORE and Senator CORDON are the other members. We have given the security aspects of this bill the closest possible study. Every line has been carefully gone over with the experts who have direct responsibilities in the field of security.

More important than our study of the bill, or at least of basic importance in terms of our competence to judge this bill, is the continuing review and close scrutiny given to the practice of security since the McMahon Act went into effect. I have not served on the joint committee during this entire period, but I have never ceased to give the matter my closest attention.

Chapter 12 of H. R. 9757, composed of six sections, modernizes the security provisions of the existing act, passed in 1946 and reflecting the attitudes of that period as to the exclusiveness of America's position in the field of atomic

ures

As a matter of fact, the objectives of making practical and realistic the security provisions of the act characterize every change we have made from existIng law.

I would like to recall to your minds, since I am sure my colleagues have gone over the report accompanying this billReport No. 2181-the discussion of this all-important security problem appearing on page 23 of the report.

I want to touch briefly on each section of this chapter, but before doing so, I would like to summarize the security accomplishments of this bill. I say "accomplishments" advisedly, not only because of the very merit of the proposed language but also because of the improvement effected in the Commission's security operations. The new language will give the Commission needed flexibility in specific fields, and assures the American people that the expansion of the whole business of atomic energy-in both domestic and international aspects can be carried out with adequate protection for the security interests of the United States.

A major accomplishment of H. R 9757 is to clear up a situation which has plagued both the Commission and all of the military services since the passage of the act. We have made several attempts In the past to cure this problem by legislation. Nearly 8 years of experience underlie these changes. The problem bas been acute during the last 4, as the military services have intensified and expanded their competence, their train

ing effort and their preparedness in the field of atomic weapons. What was once a unique and limited weapon for n only under conditions of very high and very narrow policy determinations due to scarcity-is now a central Item of ordnance in the total complex of weap. ons systems

Let me give you an example of why the changes proposed in H. R. 9757 are so important. This is a hypothetical case, of course, but not necessarily o

Put yourself in the position of an ord nance technician employed by a Depart ment of Defense contractor developing a guided missile. One of the speclications, set up by the Defense Depart ment, is that the missile must be able to carry an atomic warhead.

Can you go direct to the nuclear.. weapon designers, who are employees of the Commission's contractors in the weapons field? They have a so-called top-secret clearance and so do you. You need to know about the shape and size and weight distribution of the nucirap warhead which your missile is to carry.

The present law says you cannot talk to the Commission's contractor unles you have been investigatea by the FBI or the Civil Service Commission and cleared by the Commission. Not Just cleared by the Department of Defense, even though you may have been investigated dozen & times and tested by every personnel-security procedure known to the Department of Defense, You may have handled the most sendtive information in the Nation's whole defense setup. for years but, unless you have also been through the paralel channels of clearance established by law for AEC contractors, you cannot talk to your fellow weapons expert in the AEC setup. H. R. 9757 clears this matter up. The Commission's contract employer can talk to you upon receipt and notification to your employer of the Department of Defense certification as to your clear. ance.

As matters stand now, this type of information could be given to you only through a third party officially cleared by both of the contracting agencies The awkwardness and waste in such a procedure is obvious, for the duplication of investigations and clearance actions is costly and unnecessary.

The safeguards surrounding the exchange of information with our allies are of vital importance. But they are realistic. As matters stand now, General Gruenther, when wearing his hat as Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, cannot tell his British chief of fighter aircraft-assuming he has a British chief directing fighter-aircraft operationsGeneral Gruenther cannot even tell im the basic weapon effects needed in the employment of the types of atomo bombs which fighter aircraft can carry. When the general put on his hat es commander of the American forces, he can talk freely to his American staff about the things the field-operations conmanders need to know.

The proposed bill will assist the NATO commander in this regard. It perm's the transmission, under rigid safeguards of the information required for the m tary employment of the weapon. It spe

cifically forbids, since there is no need for transmission of such information, all data about the design and manufacture of the weapon and the nuclear materials involved.

The bill provides the same flexibility in connection with the operations of our own forces. It permits the removal, as the Commission and the military may agree, the removal from the statutory restraints of restricted data of that information relating to the size, weight, shape, and ballistic characteristics of atomic weapons and provides for the continuing protection of such data under military security regulations. Just as the restricted data security requirements provide for one kind of protection of research and development and manufacturing operations, the military security regulations provide protection of another kind to meet the differing conditions of military operations. Heretofore, we have tried to impose the Commission's statutory security standards on information of military operations with respect to information primarily of importance to the military. Needless to say, both the Commission and the Department of Defense are very anxious to have this matter cleared up. We are assured that the language in section 142 will do this. Should it be necessary for me to speak later in more detail on these sections of this bill which deal with the operations of the security system, I will do so, but in order to expedite the business before the House, I suggest you first check the report. I believe you will find it very complete on this point.

The last point I will touch on is the authority given to the Commission to make a determination as to the degree of sensitivity of various types of restricted data. Again, an example might help.

During the building of one of the gaseous diffusion plants, there comes a stage when enough equipment is on the floor that a competent engineer or sclentist in the field of isotope separation by gaseous diffusion could gain some knowledge of the output of such a plant. That is, he could see the size of the motors and compressors and examine the layout of the plant to get some idea of the volume of flow of the gases. Of course, he would have it for only the one bay, or wing, of the plant. Now, under the present law, the expert welders who have to put this vast system together, but who do not see any plans, specifications, production data, nor do they get anywhere near nuclear materials, and who work under the closest possible and Very vital technical supervision and direction-these people have to go through the same security procedure as the top scientists who design the weapons themclves. The cost in time and dollars is obvious

A5333

I want to assure my colleagues of the dequacy and effectiveness of the pro'ective features of the bill. But there

one more item of major importance. The joint committee has long been of he opinion that the most effective secu

rity is attained only if the areas of information requiring protection are held down to include only that information which positively needs protection.

H. R. 9757 constitutes an unequivocal directive to the Commission to maintain continuous review of all classified information and to declassify and publish scientific and technical data which can be published without undue risk to the common defense and security.

The bill, of course, continues, and I believe improves, the policy declarations with respect to the Commission's obligations to control of information in such manner as to assure the common defense and security, and with respect to the dissemination of technical information essential to scientific and industrial progress and public understanding and to expand and enlarge the Nation's reservoir of scientific knowledge available to all our teachers and research workers.

A5312

AEC as Power Broker

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OP

HON. MELVIN PRICE

OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, July 23, 1954

Mr.

PRICE Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include an editorial from the Washington Daily News of July 13. It is presumed that this editorial not only expresses the opinion of the Daily News but of all other newspapers in the Scripps-Howard chain:

AEC AS A POWER BROKER Protests against the President ordering the United States Atomic Energy Commission to aign a 25-year contract with a private power syndicate to buy electricity for the Tennes Bee Valley Authority have now provoked the administration, and some of its Democratic and Republican friends, to hurry to Mr. Eisenhower's defense.

We still thlak it is wrong for the Prestdent to use the AEC in this fashion aMA power broker for another agency which is itself the biggest integrated power operator in the world.

And those who so loudly try to defend or explain the President's error in this case have not yet got to the heart of the issue.

The beart of the issue is that a majority of the United States Atomic Energy Commisalon 3 Commisioners out 5 was against the contract the President wants signed.

Commissioner Henry D. Smyth and Eugene M. Zuckert, then one of the AEC Commissioners, wrote to the Budget Bureau last April 16. Among other things they said:

Under this proposal the Atomic Energy Commission would be used as a vehicle for the supply of 600.000 kilowatts of power in the Memphis area. ... The propoerd ac tion involves the AEC in a matter remote from its responsibilities. The present proporal would create a situation whereby the AFC would be contracting for power not one kilowatt of which would be used in connection with the Commission production activities. The creation of such a contractual relationship would place upon the Commission a continuing responsibility during the 25-year life of the contract for

Then Commissioner Murray added: "Since our program is not advanced by these nego tiations and the subsequent administration of this 25-year contract, I do not belleve that it is desirable for the Atomic Energy Commission to perform a function that another agency of Government could perhaps more logically perform."

We stand with those three Atemle Commissionera. We belleve they were right when they took their stand against the idea of AEC becoming a power broker for the TVA.

We believe they are still right. The country-indeed, the whole world depends upon our atomie might

A5343

free

The Atomic Energy Commission administers our atomic program.

It should not be saddled with extraneous duties and responsibilities which have no relation whatever with its primary task.

To force these duties and responsibilities upon the AFC is in our opinion, dangerous to our national defense.

A5345

Amending Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as Amended

SPEECH

OF

HON. CARL HINSHAW

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, July 23, 1954

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9757) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word for the

A5316

purpose of inquiring from my friend, the distinguished constitutional lawyer the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM) what his opinion is of this situation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have a very distinct recollection of the time a number of years ago, 7 or 8 years ago, when Hon. Fritz Lanham, chairman of the Committee on Patents, consulted with us on the Committee on the Judiciary on this subject and Hon. Hatton Sumners chairman of my committee, assigned me as one of those to go into

The intent of Congress in the definitions as given in this section shall be construed from the words or phrases used in the denitions rather than from the choice of words or phrases defined

The gentleman from Texas και promised that he would have an explanation of this later. I had hoped that he would take the time himself when we reached this point in the bill, but apparently he is not on the floor at the moment. Being interested, also, in getting an explanation of that language, I have requested this time in the hope it may be clarified.

I looked in the report to see if it explains that rather ambiguous language, and the only thing I found in the report which has to do with that particular section or that wording reads as follows:

Those portions of the definitions which require substantive action bave, in most cases, been separated from the definitions and have been put into the approptrate section of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I lay no claim to any great wisdom or intelligence; in fact, I

(100 Core. Rec. A5346-A5347)

confess to being dull, but if this can possibly be explained to me in terms and language I can understand, I hope that some member of the comittee will do so. I will gladly yield to any member of the comittee who may desire to explain this language. Now if this were not such a serious matter, I would think this kind of language to be amusing. But, this is a serious matter-perhaps, the most serious piece of legislation we have considered this year. I do hope some member of the committee, and I will be delighted to yield, will give me an explanation which I will be able to understand because I cannot understand even what you have in the report.

Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I shall undertake to give him an answer. I am sure he will be able to understand it, but I am not so sure it will be acceptable to him. The gentleman referred to the statement in the committee report with respect to definitions in which it is sald that those portions of the definitions which require substantive action have in most cases been separated from the definition and been put into appropirate sections of the bill That has to do with portions of existing law where words are defined. Those are now brought forward into this single section under the title "Definitions" so that all of the expressions used frequently in the latter portions of the bill, which might have a variety of interpretations, are defined in this section under the heading "Definitions." With respect to the language used in the opening part of section 11, the effort there was to declare a direction to whoever it might be who would be called upon to interpret these words which have a special meaning, at a later time, to look to the definition itself in interpreting the meaning of the word rather than the word which was selected to be defined. Now to me that is perfectly clear. It may not be to the gentleman, but it is perfectly clear to

what the limitations are or where the controls rest. This is an example of the great weakness, as I see it, of this tu To carry it out as the gentleman intends to carry out the provisions of the bill is one thing but it is not tight enough to guarantee that will be done, and thea we find section 162, It says point blank that the President can walve the kea requirements, as to contracts if he wan's to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.

A5347

Amending Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as Amended

SPEECH

OF

HON. BROOKS HAYS

OF ARKANSAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, July 23, 1954

The House in Comunittee of the Wbcie House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9757) to arcend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended

Mr. HAYS of Arkansas Mr. Chair. man, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to addres this inquiry to the gentleman from New York, the author of the substitute. Is it his purpose to leave to the President the power in the atomic-energy Geld that be exercises in other areas?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is exactly right, subject to the constitutional limitations with respect to treaties and international agreements

Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I listened very carefully to what the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the committee, had to say in general debate and I sensed in his comment on the President's power that he shares the view that the President's power should not be circumscribed. As a matter of fact there is little difference between us on this principle. All the thoughts that have been expressed seem to converge at least at this point, that we would be eager to preserve the President's consttutional power. Now, that is not plat tudinous in the present world situation. I agree with the gentleman regardir.g the President's position. His address to the newspaper editors and later the address to the United Nations Assembly inspired millions throughout the world And, the gentleman knows my attitude