207 



Senate Committee on Armed Services before the negotiations wore 

 begun on the test ban treaty. After the treaty had been initialed, the 

 subcommittee, under the chairmanship of John Stennis, resumed its 

 hearings having thereafter a substantive focus for its questions.®^ 



Complications of hearings in tioo convmittees 



As a consequence, the Administration had to prepare testimony 

 simultaneously for two different hearings. The arrangement was made 

 more awkward in that the Committee on Armed Services had been 

 invited to sit with the Committee on Foreign Relations. Prioritv at- 

 tention by Government witnesses was given to the hearings of the 

 latter committee because the treaty had been referred to it for action. 

 The effect of this priority was that some witnesses were not able to 

 appear before Senator Stennis' subcommittee at all, others had to 

 schedule appearances inconveniently, and security review of the 

 lengthy and sensitive testimony tended to be delayed. Senator Stennis 

 complained several times about the "treatment" his subcommittee re- 

 ceived. On the other hand, Senator Fulbright expressed some dissatis- 

 faction with the action of the Preparedness Subcommittee in invading 

 a field that he considered the prerogative of his own committee.''^ 



The approaches by the two Senate bodies differed. The Foreign 

 Relations Committee heard some 20 major witnesses, most of whom 

 favored the treaty. The Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee 

 heard 13 witnesses, in August, balanced roughly half for and half 

 against. The questions addressed to witnesses before both committees 

 were extensive, thorough, searching, and detailed. A somewhat friend- 

 lier attitude prevailed toward the treaty in the Foreign Relations 

 Committee, but both sets of hearings produced extremely informative 

 testimony. The scope of the Foreign Relations Committee was the 

 broader — as it included consideration of such issues as the effect of 

 the treaty on the NATO Alliance, the meaning of treaty language, 

 the Sino-Soviet split, the interests of the non-nuclear States in the 

 treaty, and the propriety of the use of nuclear explosives for peaceful 

 purposes under the treaty. The subcommittee confined itself to the 

 military (or national security) aspects of the treaty. The effect of this 

 difference in scope was that prepared statements and responses to 

 questions in the committee balanced military risk with political ad- 

 vantage; while in the subcommittee, attention was centered on mili- 

 tary risk and technical disadvantages or limitations regarding the 

 development of weapons and defensive systems that would result 

 from the treaty. 



When the question of approving the treaty was finally decided on 

 the Senate floor, September 24, only 2 of the 17 members of the Com- 

 mittee on Foreign Relations (Long of Louisiana and Lausche), voted 

 against it. Seven of the 17 members of the Committee on Armed Serv- 



81 In the resumed hearinprs, the following witnesses appeared between Aug. 1 and 

 Aug. 27 : Dr. John S. Foster, Jr. ; Dr. Norris E. Bradbury ; Dr. Edward Teller : Gen. 

 Maxwell Taylor and the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ; Gen. Thomas S. 

 Power, commander of the Strategic Air Command: Gen. Bernard A. Schrlever, com- 

 mander of the Air Force Systems Command ; Dr. Harold Brown ; Admiral Anderson 

 (then U.S. Navy (retired) ; Gen. Nathan F. Twining, U.S. Air Force (retired), former 

 chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 



82 The conflict in scheduling between the two committee hearings Is illustrated by the 

 fact that on the opening day of the Foreign Relations Committee hearings, the Secretary 

 of State presented testimony in the morning (10 to 12 :0.5) and in the afternoon (2 to 

 4:45), while the Preparedness Subcommittee heard from Dr. Teller all afternoon (2 to 

 5:.30). Both witnesses were important figures and chanced to be expressing strongly 

 differing points of view. Members of the Preparedness Subcommittee, invited to attend 

 both sets of hearings, had to choose between them. 



