THE PRECEDENT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000600010022-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 20, 2005
• Sequence Number: 22
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600010022-7
The Precedent of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy
In his two Senate speeches urging the formation of a Joint
Congressional Committee on Intelligence, Senator Mansfield l:-as
urged the precedent of the Joint Congressional Committee on
Atomic Energy. He stated that the latter Committee "offers x 11
model for Congressional participation in the control of C E..
The purpose of a Congressional committee is usually cc i-
sidered to be one of investigating for, and to plan and to recox mend on, legislation. The control of an Executive departmen
under the doctrine of separation of powers lies with the Execu-
tive Branch and not the Congress. If the elementsof control
which the Joint Congressional Committee exercises over the
programs of the Atomic Energy Commission are to be a piece -
dent for a Joint Congressional Committee on Central Intelligence,
an almost unworkable situation will exist right from the start.
Senator Mansfield points out that the AEC benefits becaE-ae
the -Committee provides the Commissioners with a clear chan?.rl
into which they can direct their legislative problems. Howe4ez-,
the AEC's activities require extensive legislation affecting people
in many fields. These include pre-emptive relationships in
patents and property, civil defense, control of materials, nsTiu-
facture of weapons, and stringent Judicial penalties for viclati.,,ils.
Thus, the Joint Committee has a continuing problem of studying
atomic energy activities in order to make sure that legislation
remains consistent with the problem.
Legislative requirements of the %.EC are much more
numerous than those of CIA. CIA has averaged lees than one
law a year, whereas there were more than 20 bills on atomic
energy introduced into the 82nd Congress and 14 up to the pre-
sent time in the 83rd. Furthermore, the CIA bills largely rur
to the administration of the Agency. The atomic energy bills
before the Joint Committee have covered subjects ranging fror
the abolition of the AEC itself through construction projects, l ie-
ing facilities in Oak Ridge, self-government at Hanford, exern::t:ion
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600010022-7
 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600010022-7
from state and local taxation, to the development and product an
of atomic energy. One suggestion even called for rotation an-.ang
the membership of the Joint Committee itself so that more mi ?zn---
bers of the Congress would be aware of the atomic energy pr. gram
On the basis of legislative workload, therefore, there v .uld
not seem to be a sufficient amount to keep a Joint Committee - .tsy.
Even on the basis of a bill a year the Armed Services Committee
would be able to handle the load. Thus, all that would rernair for
a Joint Committee staff to do would be to review continually A gency
plans and operations to justify their retention.
The benefits allegedly accruing to the AEC from the Joi -,g-
Committee allegedly arise, in Senator Mansfield's view, in the
development of Congressional and public confidence in the Al:
"based on the secure knowledge that trusted Members of both
Houses are fully cognizant of developments in atomic energy.
The Senator also points out that the security of the AEC program
is not periodically threatened by sporadic investigations and a i_-
barrassing questions from the Floor. It would appear that
vigorous action by the Armed Services Committee could accor
plish the same end. The act1wities of the Preparedness Subco:r -
mittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in the hands aA
Senator Lyndon Johnson, were widely acclaimed both in th - p- se
and on the Floor of Congress, and confidence in its judgement
were universally expressed. The leadership of Chairman Vinson,
first on the old Naval Affairs Committee and then on t "he H:ue-
ArmedSeryices Committee, was forceful and universally;es-
pected.
This morning's paper headlines that the hydrogen blast is
750 times worse than the Hiroshima bomb, but the sources of this
story are members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy -irsd
not the Executive Branch, and included "an official disclosure by
the Committee Chairman that the United States has developed zt
Us 1 hydrogen bomb and has bombers capable of carrying Vitt
new weapon to any target in the world. Would we wake up ine
morning to find headlines in the press that members of the Joi it
Committee on Central Intelligence had announced that we had s a
agent in Moscow and the capability of delivering agents anywhe r--
behind the Iron Curtain?
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600010022-7