154 



Secretary of State Dulles, after underscoring Soviet military nuclear 

 progress, concluded that the strict secrecy requirements of the 1946 

 Act no longer represented the wisest international policy for the United 

 States. He identified three circumstances that had combined to create 

 the need to relax the original limits on international cooperation: 

 (1) the developing Soviet nuclear program, (2) U.S. dependence on 

 foreign uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons, and (3) legitimate 

 hopes for nuclear power abroad. Arguing the benefits to U.S. self-in- 

 terest, 44 Secretary Dulles supported the legislation, in part, so that the 

 United States could stay ahead of the Soviet Union in providing 

 knowledge of peaceful applications of atomic energy. 45 



Replying to a question as to international implications of failure 

 to enact the proposed amendments. Secretary Dulles claimed that it 

 would be quite disastrous for the United States. 46 



Some members of the Joint Committee expressed concern lest the 

 proposed amendments be regarded as an international "giveaway" of 

 U.S. secrets, technology, and materials. These fears were countered 

 by Representative TV. Sterling Cole, then chairman of the Joint Com- 

 mittee on Atomic Energy. He minimized the significance of the pro- 

 posed relaxation of controls over exchange of scientific information 

 with other countries. He observed that in comparison with the Atomic 

 Energy Act of 1946, the new proposals made only one addition to 

 information that could already be exchanged. This was dissemination 

 of information on industrial and other applications of nuclear energy 

 for peaceful purposes. This, he said, was no giveaway. 



So when you hear talk that this bill proposes to give vital information away 

 to the peoples of the world, to foreigners, to enemies as well as friends, just tell 

 those people who talk that way to look at the record. The bill does no such 

 thing. It scarcely enlarges the field of the exchange of information beyond what 

 is presently authorized by law. . . ." 



Interna fi oh ill Coopcrat'ton and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 



The overhauling of the Nation's basic atomic energy legislation in 

 l!>r>4 greatly expanded the scope of possible international relations 

 to encourage commercial use of nuclear energy abroad. In doing 

 so it placed new demands upon U.S. diplomacy. For this reason it 

 is pertinent to identify provisions of the new law that affected move- 

 ment of scientific information, technology, and materials of nuclear 

 energy from the United States to other nations. 



41 For example, be sa id : 



In extending abroad, under proper security safeguards, the evolving technology of 

 atomic energy for peaceful purposes, we shall tighten the lion, is thai tie our- friends 



abroad to us, we Bhall assure materials resources that we need, and we shall maintain 

 world leadership In atomic energy — leadership which today is such a large clement of 

 our national prestige. Ibid., p. 685. 



*» He said : 



Other countries an- making progress In atomic-power technology. There Is n crowing 

 tendency for certain raw materials supplying nations which are not industrially well 

 advanced, to turn to such other countries for nuclear power information because they 



have l n disappointed by our Inability to give them significant help. It is clear to me 



that if this trend continues, ihe interests of the United states will be seriously and det- 

 rimentally affected There is no need lure to emphasize how Important It Is for us in 

 ■tay ahead of the U.S.S.R. In providing knowledge of how to put atomic energy to 



peaceful uses. ibid., p. <;85. 



M lie said : 



I would lie sorry if (lie international aspect of this hill failed . . . because I do want 

 to emphasize with the greatest earnestness of which I am capable that I believe it 



would be quite a disastrous thing fi.r the United States If these foreign policy aspects 

 of the hill were 1 1 ■ . i adopted. 



It would gravely Interfere in my opinion with our ability to get indispensable 

 quantities of source material which we have to get from foreign markets and which I 

 do not think we can continue to get except on a basis of exchange of Information, 

 piTlng of information, which is more liberal than that which Is permitted by the present 



I. or. eil. 



♦7 Congressional Records vol lno, July 23, 1954, p. 11656. 



