Chairman, if we are a separate agency, on our own, with, let's say, a reasonable number of good jobs than we possibly can as a bureau in a large agency such as the State Department. Now, I am negotiating with another man. I have tried ever since I have been here to get some of these top slots filled because I have had a good many resignations since I came here, and it is my hope that we will get other men of the same ability, same organizing ability, and same businesslike habits to get in and see what they can do about cutting personnel which I don't think we can get when we are still a part of the old organization.

Now, the man I want to get for the head of the Voice and of the radio business, which will run about $20 million in the budget we are asking for, is certainly 1 of the topflight men in the United States. I have had 6 or 7 very good men in radio, topflight people, looking, trying to help me find a person. Finally, one of the very big advertising agencies, a very prominent agency, said, "Well, we just can't find anybody who wants to take that job. In the first place, the organization is in disrepute; it's been criticized a great deal. In the second place, the job doesn't pay very much, but we're worried about it and we know you must have somebody," and they're going to give us a man for a year, give him a leave of absence, and I hope he will come to us shortly. That man is about a $75,000 a year executive.

Now, I believe that we're going to have better luck all the way down the line in the separate agency. I think we will get good men running these various divisions. In press and publications we have a very bright and able young man whom we found in the organization and promoted him because his chief and the chief assistant both resigned, and I have high hopes for him. He may be the fellow who is going to be able to run that show. He is a career person, and bright and able. I think already he has found a way of cutting down.

But you can't successfully operate an efficient organization and attract the kind of people and have the salary structure that you have unless you have a separate setup, and that is just one aspect of it.

Now, we have at the present time 3 supergrade jobs and yet, approximately, Mr. Chairman, 40 percent of the State Department are our employees. They have about 80. Well, you can see we don't have much standing, as it were. Then we have been shot at a good deal, and I think it will change the picture a great deal if we bring all informational services together.

We'll be able, for instance, to take some of the MSA people who are very good and let some people go, and with a smaller group do the publicity work in foreign countries for MSA and for the point 4 program as well as for ourselves.

I don't think we can do this overnight and, of course, we have certain limitations regarding civil service, veterans' preference, and so forth; but to try to give you an answer, I think we'll do a more effective job with fewer people in this kind of a setup.

That is what you wanted to know, isn't it—what I think the effect on personnel would be?

Mr. BROWNSON. Yes. We are always interested in that. We have had experience with some of these organization plans where we have reorganized departments, passed the legislation through the committee, fought for it on the floor, and when the whole thing is washed out we find that we may have more efficiency-at least it is always claimed

that we have more efficiency although that is a difficult thing to measure-but we have very seldom found any economy coming out of those things, and that is one of the things in which this committee is interested-whether we are going to build a tremendous superstructure or whether we are actually going to get economy out of this organization.

Dr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. Chairman, already, in anticipation of this plan going through, we have cut back a good many employees. We have joined together, for instance, the administrative and the controller's job-I mean those units in New York. I aim also to give very careful consideration to bringing the New York office down to Washington. I think we can eliminate a number of people and a lot of high rents there. Maybe one of my assistants here can tell me the number of people that have left me.

Mr. MERSON. 1,000.

Dr. JOHNSON. Mr. Merson said 1,000 jobs.

That's about 850 bodies, I think, roughly, and about 150 jobs abolished already in anticipation of this move.

Mr. BROWNSON. That is certainly encouraging.

Mr. Lantaff and I were on a trip around the world, on a study of the military supply situation, where we had a chance to drop in at some of these State Department installations at our own time, after hours, more or less, and discuss problems with them, and at one particular installation-this was about a year and a half ago-some of the State Department people there told us the problem of additional Voice of America and other information people coming over on every ship was getting to be acute. They weren't requisitioning them. It was a problem of what to do with them after they got there, because they were just up to their ears with surplus personnel that were being sent in without any particular desire of the people operating there to augment their staff.

That is the type of thing that disturbed us to a great degree.

Dr. JOHNSON. Sir, I have talked to a number of ambassadors-Ellie Bunker, who is an old friend of mine, from Italy, and Ravndal in Hungary, and Dick Patterson in Switzerland, and I asked them about the capabilities of the people working in the information program, and they really couldn't speak too highly.

I mean, those are just a few instances.

But in the case of Switzerland we have reduced our force there from about 30 to, I think, about 5 or 6 in the last 8 weeks, and Patterson thinks we've cut it too sharply.

Does anybody want to check those figures?

Mr. CLARK. The figure, Mr. Brownson, is from 30 to 3.

Dr. JOHNSON. Thirty to three.

Mr. CLARK. That includes local employees.

Dr. JOHNSON. We are trying to economize.

Mr. BROWNSON. Of course, it often appears to us in Congress that we are in a rather peculiar situation when we are trying to run an extensive information program in a country as cultured, as literate, and as self-dependent in many ways, as Switzerland. That cut would reflect, as far as I am concerned, the type of operation I would envision-actually an information service where correspondents in Switzerland, people working on academic papers, and that sort of

thing, would have a source of information which was available when they went to it.

I think that cut is the type which gets at the sort of thing Mr. Lantaff and I saw around the world.

Dr. JOHNSON. I think Patterson felt we had cut back a little too vigorously on this theory, sir: Switzerland is becoming a sort of main stop for people coming from all countries, and people coming from all countries there were affected by what they saw in the newspapers and the press, and so forth; and he felt it was really a kind of crossing point-I didn't realize that myself—and he, therefore, hoped we would certainly not cut down any more.

I think the impression I got from the ambassadors I talked with was they were not overstaffed, but, after all, I've only talked with, I guess, four ambassadors. On the other hand, almost the first thing I did when I was appointed on the 3d of March was to ask my predecessors and Dr. Compton who they felt were the ablest public affairs' officers in our service, and they suggested, I think, altogether 10 or 11, and they were scattered in different parts of the world. I got those men together and we worked hour by hour, and then I had them really discuss every phase of the program. One night I gave a little dinner for Mr. Cecil DeMille, and I got each one to tell, in a general way, of course nothing classified, what our information people did there, and he was just fascinated, and so were some of our other guests. I am sorry I didn't know you gentlemen then. I would have liked to have had you there.

Mr. BROWNSON. Just a rough comparative question, How, I wonder, does the figure of the total number of personnel that the British use here in the information service in the United States compare with the total number our information service uses in Great Britain? Mr. MERSON. We can get that.

Dr. JOHNSON. We can get that information for you.

Mr. BROWNSON. I would like to have that just as a comparison. (The information referred to above is as follows:)

BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICE ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The British Embassy advises that there are 174 employees of the British Information Service engaged in informational activities in the United States. United States Information Service activities in Great Britain are conducted by the following number of employees:

Dr. JOHNSON. I think it would be very interesting. I do knowsomebody told me that Great Britain is spending proportionately a very large amount of their budget on information in the United States. Mr. BROWNSON. Of course, they are doing extremely well with their information.

Dr. JOHNSON. Yes; they seem to be.

Mr. BROWNSON. If you people can show the profit their information service is showing, I am sure we would underwrite you for any amount of money you wanted anywhere.

Dr. JOHNSON. The head of the British information bureau said we had a real problem on our information service in Great Britain in getting over ideas to the people over there. He said they didn't agree with some of the things we advocate, and we must reassure them of our motives. From a policy standpoint we had a tough job, and he would be glad to sit down and talk to me about it.

Now, just what he meant, I don't know; but I know some people wonder why we spend any money in Britain or any money in Belgium, for that reason. I think it is essential, if you are investing money in TCA and MSA and other aids to have troops over there, to explain what our policies are and try to keep them on our team, as it were. So, I think the expenses in those countries can be justified. Mr. BROWNSON. I think some expenditures can.

We found while in London talking to both London businessmen and American businessmen that they were a little bit embarrassed by the whole American program of information over there; that they felt in our attempt to oversell ourselves we were actually prejudicing our

cause.

Mr. Lantaff, did you have some reactions like that in your conversations, too?

I remember the two American businessmen in particular who have been in the British Empire a long time and represent outstanding firms here. George Meader and I discussed the matter with them. They felt we were somewhat overselling ourselves in putting that matter over and it was having a negative effect.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Would you yield at that point?

Mr. BROWNSON. Yes, Mr. Riehlman.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I think a survey of your whole program would be interesting, to look into that very carefully and see what the effect is in these different countries.

Dr. JOHNSON. I would be glad to do it.

That has been done to some extent. A team, with such men as Tracy Voorhees, General Donovan, Mr. Clark who is here today, Mr. Streibert, went over to France and Germany, and some of the team went to a few other countries, to try to figure out whether we weren't overdoing this thing.

I am in great sympathy with the point of view you have been talking about, which is another way of saying we have too many people over there.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I know that some 2 or 3 years ago I had an opportunity, myself, as did my colleague, to travel a bit around the world, and in the places that I visited, particularly in Indochina, Indonesia, and different places in the East, we did have a program set up there, but I just could not fathom the effect it was having in that area—the type of program they were trying to use-and the approach they were making to those people, because I just thought it was all over their head-and they were not getting any particular effect from it, and that some evaluation should be made; and I think that is very important in your field.

I would like to add this, Mr. Chairman. That I have explicit faith in the doctor and his ability as an administrator in his field, and that

I would hope that this type of program will be carefully followed and that where we can cut back on a program that isn't effective we should do it, and where it can be strengthened and be helpful it should be done.

And there is one other question I have, if I may at this time.
Mr. BROWNSON. Yes, Mr. Riehlman.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. I notice you stated in your prepared statement that you just gave us that you were going to look to the Secretary of State for foreign policy guidance-in the field of publicity and information. What other fields will you be looking to for guidance in that respect, other than the State Department?

Dr. JOHNSON. Well, I would think that there are going to be a number of agencies of government that are going to have some interest in foreign information. Obviously, we'll have quite a good deal to do there. I know of some exceedingly able people in MSA, and I hope to be able to entice at least one or two of them over to be on my staff, to make sure we do an adequate job for MSA. Then we'll do some Point 4 program, too; and I can visualize if we report to the President, through the National Security Council that there will be times Defense will want to call us in.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. What about psychological warfare?

Dr. JOHNSON. Well, of course, psychological warfare, one of the things I want to do is build up and greatly strengthen our policy group. In fact, when I came down here, to my surprise I found there had never been a planning committee; and I have gotten busy on that, and we have a very fine planning committee and in this planning committee I am hoping to include, when I can land them, 3 or 4 men, expert in psychological warfare.

You have heard of Admiral Zacharias. He may not necessarily be the type of person because I don't know enough about him, but he is at least a student of psychological warfare, and I hope we can get 3 or 4 such men.

I also want to divide up the world organizationally as the State Department now does and have representatives cover each part of the world-Latin America, Europe, the Near East, and so forth-who will be my eyes and ears, as they go throughout the world and know what is going on throughout those places, and be in intimate contact with the Ambassador who is the captain of the team; and I want the Ambassador to feel he is wearing, as Commissioner Conant said, an extra hat and will be just as anxious as I am to see an effective job done and an economical job done. If he doesn't feel he needs 2 press officers, I want him to tell me and we'll abolish one of those jobs.

But I think in the field we will work much as we worked before, except I want to make sure the Ambassador realizes we are quite intimate partners; but in the field he is the boss. We want to decentralize as much as possible. I think we try to do too much back here. After all, the people in the field know what to do and know how to do it better; and I hope the whole stateside activity will greatly decrease in the next year or two.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. You are going to take in your Department setup, as such, many of the members who are now working in this same program; is that right?

Dr. JOHNSON. Well, we were rather hoping I would only have to inherit the people I actually needed.