him its president, and the American Bankers Association elected him its treasurer for two terms. I saw in a newspaper dispatch-I believe the one which has been placed in the RECORD-the reference to Mr. Emmons as having been president of the American Bankers Association. He did not claim to have been its president, but said he had been its treasurer.

Mr. Emmons also said he operated a country bank. He conducts a good country bank. The best testimonial for him I know is that the Indians who live in his neighborhood think he is a fine man. The Indians who have dealt with him, in season and out of season, are pleased with the business relationships they have had with him. The Navahos are an important tribe from the standpoint of business. They are making money. They are making it out of uranium, and they are going to make it out of oil. They are going to become one of the rich tribes of the United States. The Jicarilla Apaches in my State have several millions of dollars on deposit. They are also going to become a rich tribe out of oil. They are going to handle their own affairs; and when they handle their own affairs, there will be those of us who will try to make sure that they have the same educational opportunities all other children in this country have, and that they have a chance to intermingle with the children of the white race, and as a result become integrated completely into our communities.

We are trying hard to do that in New Mexico. We are trying to do it in other parts of the country. I believe that when Mr. Emmons finishes his job as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, he will have moved much closer toward the ideal the American people have, of having fewer employees in the Indian Bureau, and more Indians emancipated in this country of ours.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LANGER. I merely want to say that I hope every Senator will be upon the floor when this nomination comes up· for confirmation. I shall show that there has never been an FBI report made on Mr. Emmons. I shall read charges which, in my opinion, will shock the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. As a matter of fact, on the same day the nomination went to the committee it was reported without any notice by the committee. Two members of the committee said at the hearing that they had never heard of the man. I intend to read the entire proceedings that took place before the committee which reported this nomination, and I am satisfied that when we get through, if the charges made are confirmed, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico himself will not vote for the confirmation of this nomination.

Mr. ANDERSON. I may say that I think I know human character sufficiently well to predict that when the charges against him are brought to this floor, there will be no difficulty in persuading anyone they are not true. Glenn Emmons is an honest man. He is a vigorous Republican. I am sure he

has never voted for me in his life, and has never voted for me in his life, and I would not expect him to do so, because I would not expect him to do so, because he belongs to that group in the Republican Party that somehow finds it convenient to vote the straight ticket. He can continue to do that, if he wishes to do so, but that will not deter me from saying that the people of my State know him to be an honest man. What charges can be filed against him I cannot imagine.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield.

Mr. LANGER. Does not the Senator believe that when a man is nominated for an important position there should be a hearing, and if there are any charges against him, they should be heard, so that they can be either proved or disproved?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. I should be glad to have a hearing of that kind. But, Mr. President, this time there was the most careful search for a Commissioner of Indian Affairs that has been made in the history of that office in this country. There have been many Commissioners of Indian Affairs, many of whom were extremely fine men. I think Dillon Meyer never received the credit due him for an honest administration of his office. Many persons opposed him because he stopped things he felt were wrong, and which many other people felt were wrong.

During the campaign last fall, the Republican candidate for the Presidency went into the Indian country and promised the Indians that they were to be consulted-and they have been consulted as they had never before been consulted in the selection of an Indian Commissioner.

The distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER], who knows Glenn Emmons well, knows, also, that the Indians in his State were consulted, as they were consulted in Oklahoma and in many other places. It happens that there has been a long struggle over the question of attorneys' fees in handling suits against the United States filed by Indians under the Indian Claims Act. That has stirred up a great many people. I know that many persons were anxious to get an Indian Commissioner with whom they thought they could make good arrangements. They will not be able to make improper arrangements with Glenn Emmons.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. ANDERSON. I yield.

Mr. LANGER. I want to tell the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that I do not know this man. I have never seen him. I have no candidate for the job. I am merely doing my duty as a United States Senator to bring to the attention of the Senate the charges which have been made against this man. I believe the nomination should be recommitted.

Mr. ANDERSON. I hope the persons who have made the charges will be heard. They are entitled to be heard. I have enough faith in the distinguished Senator from North Dakota to believe that if he were to examine Glenn Em

mons as carefully as he deserves to be examined, he would take the floor in supporting him.

It is a strange situation that a Democrat should stand up endorsing a Republican whose name has been submitted by the President of the United States; but this man comes here reluctantly and deserves my support. I do not think Glenn Emmons wanted to leave his little country bank and come here; I do not believe he wanted to leave the Navajo country and come here, because he has more fun at the Indian ceremonials and Indian shows which take place in that area than he will ever have in the city of Washington.

I want to express again my great confidence in the Senator from North Dakota. kota. I cannot believe that if he will examine the charges carefully he will present them to the Senate. I want to say, also, that if he wants to take a look at the files, he will find in them many of the same things about which he is speaking and which were previously brought up.

Mr. LANGER. Does the distinguished Senator know that time and time again before the Judiciary Committee Senators have recommended men for judges and United States attorneys and have been just as effusive in their praise of them as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has been in praise of this nominee? But those Senators have withdrawn their recommendations after they found out certain facts.

All I am asking is a hearing before the appropriate committee. If I do not get such a hearing, I intend to read the charges publicly.

Mr. ANDERSON. I can only express the hope to the Senator from North Dakota that, in the interest of fairness, he will show some of the charges to some of us who have been familiar with people who have access to persons in the Indian country, and we might persuade him as to whether they are reputable witnesses. Mr. LANGER. I have already submitted them to the distinguished majority leader.

President,

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. will the Senator from New Mexico yield? Mr. ANDERSON. I yield.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I should like to inform my distinguished colleague from North Dakota that I do not think there has been a nomination made this year, or in my memory, certainly not for the position of Indian Commissioner, which has received the deep consideration of those concerned that this nomination has received. I believe a total of 26 names have been submitted by various interested persons around the United States for the position of Indian Commissioner.

I should like to correct the statement of the distinguished Senator that the FBI did not examine Mr. Emmons. They did examine him.

I know the charges which the Senator will probably bring, but I can tell him that they are unfounded; they are fishmonger's stories. I know the Senator would not want to accept them without something of substance to support them. They were never anything more than a third person's deliberate lies

against a gentleman. I am sure the Senator, when he knows the facts, will not think of repeating such charges.

Mr. LANGER. Does not the Senator believe that the charges should go to the appropriate committee, to be substantiated or not substantiated, before we are asked to vote upon the nomination?

Mr. GOLDWATER. These charges were considered for nearly 7 months. Mr. Emmons was preeminently the outstanding man, but, because of these charges, which have been examined and reexamined by the men responsible for the appointment, the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, the appointment was delayed.

Mr. LANGER. But at least two of the people making the charges have offered to testify under oath. They want to be sworn and to testify. Certainly there would be no objection to having the nomination recommitted to the appropriate committee and these men be given a chance to testify under oath.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I might inform the distinguished Senator that the same offers were made during the course of the examination, but the people were not available when the time for swearing came.

I know the stories to which the Senator has referred. One of them is well

known in my section of the country

the fact that his bank failed. The fact

that a bank goes under during a period of depression is nothing to be ashamed of, particularly when this man reorganized the bank and paid back 100 cents on the dollar, without any Federal aid, I might add.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I will say this to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, that I have heard similar insinuations against all sorts of people. I lived in New Mexico at the time the banks closed there. I think I know something of the struggle Glenn Emmons made to rebuild his bank. When my colleagues on the committee asked me whether I thought it was safe to report the nomination, I said that if they had held hearings for months they would not find anything fundamentally wrong with this man.

I do not oppose the sending of a nomination back to committee if there is cause to do so, but it is absurd to have an FBI investigation on a man of Glenn Emmons' character. I do not say it is unnecessary. It comes as a shock, sometimes, to be investigated. After the President of the United States indicated his intention of appointing me to the office of Secretary of Agriculture and of placing on me the burden of the Combined Food Board as well, I found that FBI agents had been going all over my State asking questions about me. I was shocked. I thought I had a reputation in the State that would not make such an investigation necessary. After they reported that they could find nothing against me, the President of the United States was kind enough to tell me that it was customary in such situations to have an examination made by the FBI. Accordingly, I am quite sure there has been an FBI check on this individual, and when the FBI check is examined, I think

it will be found there is nothing wrong with him.

I know that an Indian attorney in South Dakota, by the name of Ramon Roubideaux, is unhappy. I cannot blame him, because I know something about the Indian contracts in which he was interested. That is the real crux of the agitation with respect to this matter.

I feel certain that when the matter is heard, if it is to be heard, it will be found either that the witnesses have no information, or that they will refuse to testify under oath.

Mr. LANGER. I am delighted to hear the distinguished Senator from New Mexico say that he has no objection to the matter being returned to committee for further testimony.

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not mind the taking of testimony. I do not know whether the matter should go back to committee unless cause can be shown. If there is anyone who has any testimony to offer, I think he should come forward with it. If there is anyone who has come to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to tell us about the matter, I do not know who he is.

AMENDMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, the acting majority leader [Mr. KNOWLAND] asked next Calendar No. 582, Senate bill 2399, me to say that he proposed to take up a bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended. After a quorum call it is the intention of the acting majority leader to call up that bill.

At the present time the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, provides for the establishment of four divisions, which are specifically named, and fixes the compensation for the directors of these divisions at $14,000 per annum, with $800 per annum additional payment authorized by Public Law 375, 82d Congress.

Since the passage of the act, the Commission has found it necessary, in order properly to carry out its vital work, to establish other program divisions. Today the following are in existence: Division of Research, Division of Medicine and Biology, Division of Reactor Development, Division of Military Application, Division of Production, Division of Raw Materials, and Division of Construction and Supply.

These program divisions perform responsible and vital functions in the national atomic energy program. Each is an operation of considerable size, and supervises the expenditure of large sums of Government funds.

In order to permit the Commission to recruit personnel to fill these directorships, the Commission requested that the salaries of the directors be set at such figure as the Commission may determine, but not to exceed $16,000 per annum, in view of the tremendous responsibilities on the shoulders of these directors. It should be noted that one directorship, that of the Division of Enthe salary limitation. gineering, has not been filled because of

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BUSH. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 582, Senate bill 2399, a bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that the amendments reported from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] were agreed to on Saturday last.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, Senate bill 2399, which was unanimously reported from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is designed to make certain amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 which are considered to be needed at this time for the proper administration of the act. In all fairness, because the bill refers to certain sections and transposes certain provisions from another statute, Public Law 298, of the 82d Congress, I believe that a brief explanation of what is proposed is warranted, for the information of the Senate.

then available to other agencies. Since other positions in Government have been that time, while the salaries attached to raised, these positions have remained almost at the level fixed 7 years previously. S. 2399 will bring the salaries for these crucial positions up to a level corresponding more closely to the level established by Congress in 1946 relative to other positions in the Government.

The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission stated that he felt that they would provide the Commission with sufficient flexibility to permit him to effect any reorganizations the Commission might find necessary before the next session of Congress.

The proposed amendment would also serve to eliminate a present limitation upon the authority of the Division of Re

search which provides that the Division of Research shall not exercise the authority granted under section 3 (a) of the Atomic Energy Act. The Congress visualized direct operation by the Commission, under the direct supervision of the Division of Research, of Governmentowned research laboratories. In these circumstances, Congress desired to obviate the possibility of overemphasis by the Division of Research in favor of Government-owned laboratories as compared with independent research institutions (sec. 3 (a)) in the stimulation and support of research projects.

The relationship of the Division of Research to the Commission-owned research laboratories has evolved on quite a different basis. These laboratories are operated, not by the Commission directly, but rather through contractors, and the Commission has encouraged wide participation by representative research institutions in the management and program direction of the laboratories.

Elimination of the limitation removes a somewhat artificial inhibition upon the Commission's organization of its staff in a manner which would make for the efficiency and flexibility requisite to the proper fulfillment of the Commission's responsibilities. The joint committee believes that since the limitation of the Division of Research seems to serve no useful purpose, and since it may be subject to varying interpretations, it should be eliminated.

Section 2 of the bill merely renumbers section 10 (b) (5) (B) (iv) in order to allow for the insertion of three new sections before it.

Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the bill incorporate bodily into the Atomic Energy Act the provisos in Public Law 298, 82d Congress, relative to the substitution of the Civil Service Commission for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with the atomic energy program. These provisions of substance to the atomic energy program have not hitherto been incorporated into the Atomic Energy Act. It is desired to put them into that act in order to keep the substantive provisions relating to the program in one statute. It was noted that the United States Code carried no crossreference to the existence of these conditions.

The second amendment approved by the joint committee and noted in the first paragraph of this report is required in order to make the bill S. 2399 conform exactly with the language of Public Law 298, 82d Congress. The Department of Justice is in agreement with S. 2399 as herein amended in this regard.

Section 6 permits the Atomic Energy Commission to authorize its members, officers, and employees to carry firearms while in the discharge of their duties. While no showdown has ever occurred, the right of Commission couriers and guards to carry guns-particularly while traveling in a State away from their primary place of employment has been questioned by State officials. Furthermore, it was deemed desirable to permit contractors at sites owned by the United States to carry firearms in the performance of their duty. In view of the sensitivity of the atomic energy program, and in view of the operation of essential installations by contractors, it is believed desirable that this clarifying legislation should be enacted.

Section 7 of the bill gives the Commis

sion power to issue rules and regulations under the Atomic Energy Act. This is a power ordinarily granted to administrative agencies, and the Atomic Energy Commission has heretofore frequently acted on an implied grant of such power.

Since the criminal provisions of the Atomic Energy Act do not apply to infractions of general rules and regula

tions, this section would not enlarge any powers of the Atomic Energy Commission to issue rules and regulations which sion to issue rules and regulations which would subject violators thereof to criminal punishment.

Section 8 of the bill permits the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to authorize its members, employees, and consult ants to carry firearms in the discharge of their official duties for the committee. This is to meet the same problems as section 6 of the bill.

Section 9 of the bill merely repeals the provisos in Public Law 298 insofar as they affect the atomic energy program.

At a meeting of the joint committee on July 17, 1953, Mr. Lewis L. Strauss, present Chairman of the Commission, appeared and supported fully S. 2399, as herein amended. It should be noted that in a letter from Mr. Strauss to the joint committee, Mr. Strauss requested authority to establish an undetermined number of divisions, and to pay directors of these divisions up to $16,000 per annum. He accepted the joint committee's view, however, limiting the number of such divisions to 11.

That, Mr. President, is a brief summary of the provisions of the bill. As I say, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy believes it is highly desirable that the Atomic Energy Act be amended in this way at this time.

Some questions might be raised with respect to the transposition of a statutory provision. The provision in section 3 of the bill dealing with the Civil Service Commission investigating the association and loyalty of employees is already contained in Public Law 298 of the 82d Congress. That section provides that when any question of loyalty is discovered by the Civil Service Commission in its investigation, the case must immediately be referred to the FBI for a full field investigation. investigation. However, that provision of law with respect to the Civil Service Commission's investigative power is not carried in the Atomic Energy Act. It is deemed advisable to lift that provision out of Public Law 298 of the 82d Congress and place it squarely in the Atomic Energy Act, so that all the laws applicable thereto will be contained in the same act. It provides that whenever the Civil Service Commission finds any evidence that some person may be of questionable loyalty, the Civil Service Commission must immediately turn the case over to the FBI for a full field investigation. The same situation is true with re

spect to sections 4 and 5 of the act, on page 3 of the bill.

With respect to the first section of the bill, it authorizes the maintenance of 11 divisions under the Commission. I may say that the activities of the Commisinvestment of somewhere in the neighsion have grown until it has a capital investment of somewhere in the neighborhood of, let us say, $10 billion, depending on how near completion some

of the programs are.

It is a vast operation. It requires It has now highly trained personnel. seven operating divisions. Some of the divisions are unable to acquire proper directors because of the inadequacy of the salary and the statutory position of the division.

The committee believes that it is a wise move to give the Commission authority to establish as many as 11 divisions. The Commission now has seven divisions. It may not be necessary to go as high as 11 divisions, but if the Commission wants to do so, the act gives them authority to go as high as 11 divisions.

The Commission may decide not to pay as much as $16,000 in salary. However, there are one or two vacancies in the offices of division heads because of the limitation of $14,800 in annual salary. The additional $1,200 may not seem like a great amount of money to many people, but the committee felt it was not warranted in going higher than $16,000 at this time. The Commission feels the additional salary will make possible for it to fill these positions with competent personnel.

Of the last 2 or 3 sections of the bill, one permits the commission to authorize its members and its employees, when in the discharge of their duty, to carry firearms. It is considered an essential provision. Top-secret documents are required to be required to be accompanied by two couriers, who are armed, for the protection of the documents.

Questions have come up repeatedly in various States of the Union when couriers have gone armed into those States, for the protection of the documents. It was felt by some States that the couriers had no right to carry pistols, because they did not have a local State permit to carry them. However, there has been no prosecution had in any of the States, although allegations of the right to prosecute the couriers have been made. Satisfactory settlements have been arrived at.

It is manifestly impossible for the Commission to secure gun permits from all the 48 States for all the couriers which the Commission may find it necessary from time to time to send out. Therefore, the bill provides that the Commission may authorize such of its members or employees who are in direct performance of their duty to have permits to carry firearms, which, as I understand, administratively will be issued at the time they begin the performance of their duties that require the carrying of firearms, and will be surrendered to the Commission when the duty has been accomplished. In other words, they will not be given carte blanche permits to carry pistols.

The joint committee handles hundreds of top-secret documents and material of even high classification each year. year. It is essential that the same requirement with respect to the carrying of pistols be extended to the joint committee when it has custody of top-secret documents and when it is transporting top-secret material. When such documents are being transported, two armed couriers are required to accompany the documents or material.

The same authorization is carried with respect to couriers of the joint committee. The joint committee is authorized to permit such of its members and employees, when it deems to be necessary, and when the occasion should arise, in

the performance of duty under the act, to bear firearms.

In the main-and completely, I believe that covers the provisions of the amendment, it seems to me.

I shall be glad to answer questions which any of my colleagues may care to ask, or to listen to any comments they may care to make.

Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PURTELL in the chair). Does the Senator from Iowa yield to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield.

Mr. FLANDERS. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the joint committee, about. the divisions. On page 2 of the report, I see that a Division of Military Application is listed. I also judge, by reading some of the fine print, that the Division of Reactor Development is to some extent concerned with the development of atomic power for civil uses. It would seem that at this stage of atomic energy development, that should be a primary and large-scale undertaking on the part of the Atomic Energy Commission. I wonder whether it really is an important and large-scale element in the development on the part of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It is an area of very high priority in the activities of the Commission at this time. It is of two kinds: First, ship propulsion; second, production of power, through atomic piles, for industrial use.

The Commission is not in the business of building those piles at this moment; but the joint committee has been going through a series of hearings, for over 3 weeks now, in which we have heard from industry, from scientists, and from Government representatives, who have testified as to the feasibility, let us say, of private participation in this field. The Government is proceeding. In the 1954 budget we are spending $110,300,000 on reactor development.

Mr. FLANDERS. The reactor development is primarily for power uses; is it?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Not entirely. If the Senator from Vermont wishes to have me classify it in terms of relative importance, I would say that today the primary object of our whole atomic energy program is the security of the United States, and much of the reactor development is for the production of materials which will assure the security of the United States. But a very substantial proportion is being devoted to reactor research and study which eventually will redound to the benefit of power production in the United States.

Mr. FLANDERS. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Iowa one or two questions which he either cannot answer or will not answer, or both.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I shall answer the questions if I can, unless the Senator from Vermont asks me about matters coming within security limitations.

Mr. FLANDERS. I assume there is a certain minimum stockpile of fission

able materials which will make it possible, within the limits of the probability of delivering them, to have a conclusive effect upon an enemy. In other words, I assume there is a certain minimum.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. If an atomic bomb were to explode close enough to an enemy, it would have a conclusive effect upon him, certainly.

Mr. FLANDERS. Yes; but I am referring to the ability to put an enemy out of a war. That involves something more than the dropping of a single bomb.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. In my judgment our Nation is making very acceptable progress along the line of military atomic energy development.

Mr. FLANDERS. That is a very fine statement. However, I was thinking in terms of a possible enemy. Could there not be a minimum supply of fissionable material which would make a possible enemy tremendously dangerous?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Of course, theoretically it would take "X" number of atomic bombs, exploded at strategic points in "A" country-it might take more in one country and less in another, but a certain number of atomic weapons would be required to be exploded in any case to destroy that country's basic ability to make war, either in terms of ability to make war, either in terms of military operations or in terms of factory installations. Once another country had such a minimum number, then that country could become an extremely dangerous enemy, granted that country's ability to deliver them on target.

Mr. FLANDERS. That relates to a minimum supply of fissionable materials.

Would there likewise be a maximum supply beyond which we would find that, supply beyond which we would find that, at least in some sense, the law of diminishing returns would begin to take effect, vis-a-vis a possible enemy who had reached or somewhat exceeded the minimum supply?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I think that point could be reached; yes. We are in a very comfortable position, so far as our power and ability to deliver atomic assaults upon anyone are concerned.

But as regards the question of whether we have reached the point where we are oversaturated in terms of that ability, I do not think we have yet reached that point, if that is what the Senator from Vermont has in mind.

Mr. FLANDERS. The Senator from Iowa has referred to a condition of saturation. From his reference to such a condition-and I have seen references made to it elsewhere-I assume there is considered to be a maximum beyond which there would be less protection per 1,000 tons for instance, by way of comparison, let us say per 1,000 tons of TNT. parison, let us say per 1,000 tons of TNT. Mr.HICKENLOOPER. Does the Senator from Vermont mean as applied to existing circumstances?

Mr. FLANDERS. Yes.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. We have not reached that point.

Mr. FLANDERS. But that is something about which the Atomic Energy Commission and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy are thinking, I as

sume.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It is what we have been thinking about for 6 years.

Mr. FLANDERS. I wish to make sure it is in the mind of the Atomic Energy Commission, because it has seemed to me for some time that it is quite clear that there is a point of diminishing returns in connection with additions to the stockpile of fissionable materials. If we were to exceed the point where, with a reasonable percentage of successful delivery-it might be 5 percent or 10 percent or 1 percent of the bombs usedthe number of them delivered on its target would be sufficient to totally destroy an enemy's possibility of carrying on a war, I suppose we would have reached a condition approaching the "saturation" situation to which the Senator from Iowa has referred.

Mr. President, I shall not make further inquiries, because it seems to me that the Senator from Iowa either could not or would not answer them. However, I wish to make the point that in terms of that saturation point, if my definition of it is correct and I would suppose that with such very great, staggeringly large and expensive operations on the part of the Atomic Energy Commission, the time would be in sight-certainly at some time within the present century, and possibly much sooner than that, the time would come when, in terms of the production of an appreciable quantity of fissionable materials, we would reasonably begin to feel that further efforts by us would involve operation of the law of diminishing returns.

I wish to make sure that that point is very much in the mind of the joint committee, as I assume it is, and also that it is strongly in the mind of the Atomic Energy Commission, as I am sure it is, and that we shall not be led astray by the insatiable appetite of the military always to have more and more and more, with no appreciable limit.

This is one of the projects which are making our fiscal burden tremendously severe, and making it impossible to carry on both the war in Korea and the operation of our peacetime economy. We have now reached the limit; in fact, we are now beyond the limit. I merely speak these few words and ask these unanswerable questions in order to make sure that the committee and the Commission do not become carried away in an attempt to minister to the insatiable appetite of an insatiable military organization.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I may assure the Senator that neither the Commission nor the committee will be led around by the nose by an insatiable military. But, by the same token, I may assure the Senator that both the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and, I am quite certain, the Commission, are going to be utterly certain that the security of the United States of America will be amply safeguarded. I may say to the Senator that it is possible to get myriad times more power per dollar spent on atomic defenses than on all the other types of power weapons put together.

Mr. FLANDERS. If the Senator will pardon me, did he not mean atomic offenses? Or is he referring to defenses from the standpoint of the psychological effect?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I do not know whether it is a matter of offense, or of defense. There is an explosion that kills people, and if we need it, we need it badly; and we can get so much more, so many, many, many times more, the amount of power out of a dollar spent for atomic weapons than we can get out of any other type of weapon of which we have knowledge.'

I may also say to the Senator, whose questions are very interesting, that it is probable that not within the foreseeable future shall we ever have too large an amount of fissionable materials; because the fissionable materials of which weapons are made are to all intents and purposes indestructible, requiring about 3,000 years before they begin to dissipate. We might store them that long, but perhaps at the end of 3,000 years we would have some other kind of weapon. But fiissionable material is good, it is usable in connection with power demands; it is good and is usable in industry; and it is utterly indestructible. It is as indestructible as gold. It is storable. It has other uses besides its use for explosives and weapons. Therefore, everytime we make X pounds of fissionable materials which we can put into weapons as we see fit, we are building a storehouse of treasure for power, for biological and other purposes tomorrow; and without doubt the world will need them. It has been estimated and I say frankly I shall have to get the figures before I can be sure, that for every pound of fissionable materials, there is the potential equivalent of 2,600,000 pounds of coal; and that is not farfetched. I mean that is the potential in this material, for industry. So when

we build it, we may never come to the point where an insatiable demand will choke us down with too much of it; because we can store it and keep it without putting it into weapons, if it becomes necessary. But we are watching it, in order that we may not overdo it.

Mr. FLANDERS. I may suggest to the Senator from Utah that in his concluding words he is leading the thought around to my introductory remarks, in which I inquired as to the extent to which the Commission was concerning itself with the production of power.

Mr.HICKENLOOPER. The Commission is concerning itself very assiduously with the production of power; and the present discussion has relation to how far we should go in opening up the law to permit private enterprise to investigate and experiment with atomic energy, and as to how much further the Government should go with the pioneering and investigation. That is a matter which is receiving the very earnest attention of the Commission and of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I am glad to

yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I should merely like to ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa whether the Atomic Energy Commission is coordinating its research work with the work of the National Science Foundation, which is try

ing to take over research in pure science as distinguished from research in applied science, and whether any work is being done along that line.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes; there is very close coordination between the National Science Foundation and the Atomic Energy Commission, in connection with the fellowship programs. Close attention is being paid to the recommendations of the National Science Foundation, and to any suggestions it may have to offer in respect to various other branches of research in the schools and universities throughout the United States. As I recall, we have several thousand contracts with universities for research, and so forth. An attempt is made to coordinate all the activities into one program.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am very glad to hear that, because the National Science Foundation, favors the principle of taking over as far as possible research in pure science, leaving to special bodies such as the Atomic Energy Commission and the various departments in the principal fields, the matter of investigations in the field of applied science.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I may say the National Science Foundation has been a little short of money with which to extend its operations in these fields. However, it may be able to get more money with which to carry on its important work.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. That is pertinent to the very question I have in mind, because Chester Barnard, who is one of the outstanding men of the country in the guidance of this work, is handicapped by the fact that there was a ceiling upon the amount asked for. Now that the ceiling has been removed, the National Science Foundation is prepared to cooperate with the Atomic Energy Commission and with various other departments in trying to get the whole scientific research program on a sound national basis.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I think the Atomic Energy Commission, simply as a result of a lack of money on the part of the National Science Foundation, has taken on certain activities which normally would fall within the scope of the activities of the Foundation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is possible that by another year we can work more closely together, and can get the problems worked out.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER.

I am sure we

shall be willing to work as closely with the National Science Foundation as circumstances permit.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield to the I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. The theory of the amendment, in respect to research, is that it would permit the Atomic Energy Commission to make contracts for research with organizations outside the government-owned research laboratories. Is that correct?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. No, the amendment has nothing to do with that.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Will the Senator kindly explain?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The amendment, in the main, may be explained in this manner. We have seven departments within the Atomic Energy Commission. This would enlarge the number by four, so that there would be eleven departments, or divisions. It would not at all increase the contract authority.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I did not mean that. I may invite the attention of the Senator to the language of the committee report, on page 3, which reads as follows:

The Congress visualized direct operation by the Commission, under the direct supervision of the Division of Research, of Government-owned research laboratories.

But what the Division of Research does is to be brought to the attention of the contractor.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I think I now understand the Senator's question. The Senator will pardon me, because I at first misunderstood him. In the original concept of the pending bill, it was thought that probably the Government would do a large part of the work in connection with this operation.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. That is, in the matter of research.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes. However, as the Commission organized its force and looked into the situation, it became apparent that it could do a better job by having its research done, in the main, through contract, for example, with the Associated Laboratories, which is a Government institution operating at Brookhaven or by the University of Chicago, or by MIT, or by literally hundreds of colleges and research foundations throughout the country, including the University of California. They all operate now as contractors under the Atomic Energy Commission, which is better than for the Commission to operate directly, particularly in the employment of personnel.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. The purpose of the amendment is merely to legalize or to confirm what has already been going on. Is that correct?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. No, that has already been legalized. This is merely a historical review of what happened, and an attempt to show that we need some other divisions in connection with overall supervision of contractual operations.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the Senator.

dent, I have no further statement, and Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presiif there are no further statements by other Senators, I would ask that the bill move to its third reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill (S. 2399) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That section 2 (a) (4) (B) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

"(B) a Division of Military Application and such other program divisions (not to exceed 10 in number) as the Commission may determine to be necessary to the dis