allocated but not installed. It will not be installed until the plants have been financed and constructed. Therefore there would be that interval of between 3 and 5 years for the enlistment and training of inspectors. I simply wanted to make clear that there was a difference between an immediate situation, an immediate draft on our technical manpower for immediate construction of reactors in the United States, and on the other hand for the inspection of reactors which will not come into existence for a period of years. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dworshak? IS THERE DANGER OF USE OF ATOMIC MATERIALS FOR MILITARY PURPOSES? Senator DwORSHAK. Mr. Secretary, I am sure we all agree on the commendable objectives of using atomic energy for peaceful purposes, but probably we ought to question the feasibility of such a program. Therefore I ask you this question: To what extent would this international Agency deal with weapons and warmaking aspects of atomic energy? Secretary DULLES. It would not deal with them at all except in the negative sense of maintaining a supervision to be sure that the nuclear material furnished was not used for warmaking purposes. Senator DwORSHAK. The information sheet made available to members of the committee lists this program as embracing these goals: power production, reactor projects, nuclear fuel, research development, exchange of scientific information. This leads me to ask the question that if this proposal, this program, is successful, how would you prevent member nations from utilizing this information and atomic materials for military purposes, because the more adept, the more experienced they became in peaceful uses of atomic energy, isn't it only natural to assume that they could utilize all of this information and this uranium or atomic energy by diversion to war and military purposes? Secretary DULLES. In the first article, "Objectives" of the agency, it is said there the purpose is to be sure that the material is not used in such a way as to further any military purposes. The Agency, of course, has no police power to enforce by military means its own edicts in this matter. Whether the material is furnished under bilaterals with safeguards or under multilateral safeguards, there is always the risk that a country can violate the agree ment. There is a very strong moral sanction against doing so, and, of course, any violator would automatically be denied any right to any further material. Senator DWORSHAK. If there is such a diversion, isn't it probable that you would not learn about it until after the act has been completed and the damage done? How would you anticipate and prevent it? Secretary DULLES. As I said in my prepared statement, Senator, the process of converting the kind of material that will be furnished for peaceful purposes into weapons quality is an elaborate and expensive process of a magnitude which would be very difficult to carry out without its becoming known. Senator DwORSHAK. But the same uranium in atomic energy that is applicable to peaceful uses can be utilized for military purposes. and atomic weapons; is that not true? Secretary DULLES. No, sir. Senator DwORSHAK. It is not? Senator DwORSHAK. Why not? Secretary DULLES. I would rather have you ask Admiral Strauss to answer that, but the quality of material furnished for peaceful uses and indeed desirable for peaceful uses is quite different from the weapons quality material. To make one into the other is a very elaborate and expensive operation. At least so I am told. I am no expert in this field myself. Senator DWORSHAK. On page 7 of the information sheet we find— Uranium 235 to be made available to the international agency for distribution to member nations will not be transferred immediately to the Agency but for the present will be retained by the United States until it is called upon for delivery to the site of use in an Agency-approved project. By implication does that not mean that the United States will be expected to furnish a large part of uranium 235 to the International Agency, presumably for peaceful uses but possibly not? What is the meaning of that, that the United States will retain uranium 235 until it is required to turn it over? Naturally as we in this country have probably the greatest source of uranium, atomic energy, if we participate fully in this proposed International Agency, is it not likely that we will be asked very promptly to turn over uranium to the agency? Secretary DULLES. No, not until arrangements of a specific character are made for its disposal on terms and conditions which we ourselves agree to. Senator DwORSHAK. You insist, then, that there are proper safeguards to ensure the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes? Secretary DULLES. I do feel that way, but you will get much more authoritative judgments on that from the experts in the atomic field than from me. Senator DwORSHAK. I am glad to have your views, as the Secretary of State. One more question. On page 5 of this information sheet is this quote: It will be recalled that one of the main aims of the President's 1953 proposal was to siphon off fissionable materials from the world's atomic weapons stockpiles. Do you interpret that to mean that the United States would be willing to dissipate its own atomic weapons stockpiles and make this nuclear power and energy available to the International Agency with the hope that we might encourage all of the member nations to do likewise? Secretary DULLES. It is our hope that the Soviet Union will also put into this Agency or make available to it a portion of its stockpile, thereby diverting it from potential military purposes to peaceful purposes. Senator DwORSHAK. My time is up. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Under the 6-minute rule which was adopted, the list has been completed, but there were those who under that rule had not asked all the questions they wished to ask. I had in mind having a second round under the same 6-minute rule, but that would take us a good while longer. How much longer would you feel like remaining, Mr. Secretary? Or would you prefer to arrange to come back at some future time? Secretary DULLES. Mr. Chairman, I would very much prefer to withdraw as a witness now. We have a very distinguished visitor here from abroad whom you entertained here yesterday and I have to prepare for further conferences with him. If it were feasible for me to withdraw at this point and to allow Ambassador Wadsworth to subject himself to your questioning as a witness, and then Admiral Strauss on Tuesday, I would always be available to come back to the committee to supplement my testimony, if that would be agreeable. The CHAIRMAN. We will abide by your wishes. You prefer to discontinue the hearing now? Secretary DULLES. I would, sir, if I could, because I have an important meeting right after lunch with President Ngo Dinh Diem and I have got to get ready for that. The CHAIRMAN. We wish to accommodate you. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Chairman, just before adjournment I would like to ask consent to have incorporated at the end of my interrogation this morning a series of 48 questions which I submitted some time ago to the Department of State on this treaty and the answers of the Department of State as returned to me. I understand by inquiry that there is nothing of a classified nature in the replies. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. (See p. 52.) We will stand in adjournment until next Tuesday, May 14, at 10 o'clock in the morning. At that time our witness will be Adm. Lewis Strauss, of the Atomic Energy Commission. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m. Tuesday, May 14, 1957.) STATUTE ON THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1957 UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10: 15 a. m., in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator Theodore Francis Green (chairman) presiding. Present: From the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Senators Green (chairman), Mansfield, Kennedy, Wiley, Smith (New Jersey), Hickenlooper, and Aiken. From the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy: Senators Anderson, Hickenlooper, Bricker, and Dworshak. (Senator Hickenlooper is on both committees.) Also present: James J. Wadsworth, Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations; W. F. Libby, Thomas E. Murray, and Harold S. Vance, members of the Atomic Energy Commission. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will please come to order. This morning the Committee on Foreign Relations is again meeting with the Senate members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to continue our consideration of the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Last Friday, Secretary of State Dulles presented the views of the Department of State concerning the importance of ratifying the treaty before us. Today we are to hear from Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, who may wish to develop further some of the points raised in Secretary Dulles' testimony. I Ι am sure my colleagues will have additional inquiries to address to Admiral Strauss concerning the effectiveness of the inspection and control system established by the statute, and other matters. During our last meeting, we followed a rule limiting each member's questioning to 6 minutes. I propose to adhere to the same limit during this meeting, at least for the first round of questions. This way we will ensure that an equitable opportunity is given to all members to discuss those aspects of the statute in which they may be especially interested. We will now hear from Admiral Strauss, if you will be so good as to proceed, Admiral. STATEMENT OF HON. LEWIS L. STRAUSS, CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Mr. STRAUSS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, first I would thank you for the privilege of appearing here this morning. I am accompanied by the other members of the Atomic Energy Commission and by interested members of the staff. 83 |