already have, unless your request specifically says these will replace Mr. STOKES. May I make a point? Mr. BROWNSON. Will you, please? Mr. STOKES. The budget, assuming the Congress votes the full amount that has been requested, for the new agency in any event will be substantially less than the IIA has had for the current year. So. the total number of positions in the new agency, regardless of whether you have these supergrades or not-the total number of positions is going to be substantially less. Mr. LANTAFF. Because of budget cuts? Dr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. STOKES. Budget cuts; yes, sir. Dr. JOHNSON. We have cut about 6 or 8 overseas posts now, will probably have to cut out 20 more posts entirely, you see. Mr. LANTAFF. Now, you mentioned and we Dr. JOHNSON. Excuse me. May I just tell you one thing that I remember? We haven't a General counsel now, and that would be a supergrade job; and I just negotiated with a man from a certain big State, who is now a supreme court judge, and one of the top lawyers in his State, and he has reached the time-I mean, though he is a young and vigorous man-he is perhaps 60, 61-and he will have a little retirement and he can afford to take that job apparently, and he's agreed to come in in a few weeks. Now, his would be a new job because the General Counsel services for IIA now are under the direction of Herman Phleger, who is paid for by the State Department. In the same way, we would have a new man in the security office. I imagine the security officer would be a supergrade job. So, there will be a few new jobs, but not many. Mr. LANTAFF. You haven't firmed up your organization yet— Mr. LANTAFF (continuing). To determine just how many? Mr. BROWNSON. By the way, you mentioned the security officer. Do you have any idea how big that setup will be? Dr. JOHNSON. I haven't the slightest idea. Mr. Noone-Charles Noone joined our organization. He is now a deputy to Mr. McLeod, but when we set up our new organization-I wouldn't know, sir. All I want to do is make sure we don't have anybody in there who is not in complete sympathy with the American way of life and our Government's foreign policy and a real patriot. Mr. BROWNSON. Well, we certainly concur with you in that ambition. We were just curious, because if you had that figure shaped up we could then check with Mr. McLeod and see whether getting rid of this portion of the burden which he is now carrying Dr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. BROWNSON (continuing). The reduction in his staff will roughly offset the increase. Dr. JOHNSON. I would like to have his advice on it. In fact, I am sure his advice would be helpful. Mr. LANTAFF. You mentioned about overseas staffing, and that is one of the things that we are trying to get into the record for the future— you mentioned that you were concerned with the staffing overseas and that your people would be on the team, captained by the Ambassador. Dr. JOHNSON. Right. Mr. LANTAFF. Now, in the event we should find or learn of overstaffing overseas in your particular agency, would that be your responsibility or would it be the responsibility of the Ambassador? Dr. JOHNSON. Well, I think I can answer that this way: According to a recent talk I had with the President, I am responsible to see that the Ambassador has the proper staff for information work. Now, if the Ambassador and I happen to disagree, if he wants more people than I want for purely an information thing, I believe I would have the right to say, "I think you have too many people for the job you have." Mr: LANTAFF. In other words, you will be the one that is responsible for the number of your people overseas, subject to coordination and working with the State Department? Dr. JOHNSON. That is right, and I hope I can rely on the Ambassador if good judgment is offered because obviously with 180 postsMr. BROWNSON. Has any ambassador ever turned down any personnel or asked for any reduction in the staff operating under him? Mr. CLARK. Not in the records I have seen. Mr. BROWNSON. I was going to say, if you are depending on the ambassador to prune your staff over there it will grow in one direction. Mr. CLARK. I think the Director of USIA is in charge of his personnel. Mr. BENDER. Has the Appropriations Committee taken care of that? Mr. BROWNSON. Not all yet. Mr. BENDER. They have done a pretty good job. Mr. LANTAFF. The only thing I am trying to make a record on, and I have ever since these hearings began, is that because of the pyramid setup by these agencies being created there won't be a lot of buckpassing of responsibility within the agency, so these questions are not so much concerned with the present time, but so we do have a record as to who has the responsibility. Mr. RIEHLMAN. May I interrupt you at that point? I think that is a very good point and well taken, Mr. Lantaff, but I think that the doctor in his statement here today, on page 5 under the heading of No. 9, he states that the integration of information activities overseas will eliminate possibilities of duplication, overlapping, or duality of purpose, and that is entirely in line with the question you had right here. I think the doctor is apparently aware of the problem and hopes he will be able to take care of it. Dr. JOHNSON. I wonder if I could go back to a question my friend from Cleveland asked me a moment ago, and explain that I am not an orthodox educator. I am trained in business. I happen to be one of four men who started Time Magazine, which was printed for a brief period by a printing company in Cleveland, and while there I was borrowed by the State of Pennsylvania to be relief administrator. There was nearly a fifth of the State on relief and it was costing $200 million to run the job. When I came to Temple University it was because of my business experience and not just as an educator, 35202-53--13 so I am not bringing an academic understanding to this job but I am trying to bring a business background to the job. Mr. BENDER. I am glad I asked the question. Mr. MEADER. Might I ask a question on No. 9 which Mr. Riehlman just referred to? If I understand your responsibility correctly, it is more or less to sell the United States and our system of government and our general economic philosophy to foreign countries, isn't it? Dr. JOHNSON. Well, I think it is deeper than that, sir. For example, we may have a very vital disagreement with Rhee, and we are having one now in Korea, aren't we? Well, it isn't selling the United States exactly for us to go to the countries of the world and explain our attitude on this matter. It is selling our policies and our motives and the reason why we do such things. In a way, that is not selling the United States, but it is selling our point of view, you see. It is a good deal more than just selling the United States. Mr. MEADER. Now, that leads to this question: The Ambassadors have traditionally been regarded as the salesmen of America and America's policies? Dr. JOHNSON. That is right. Mr. MEADER. Now, at the present time your agency is directly under the Ambassador, isn't it? Dr. JOHNSON. Yes; that is right. Mr. MEADER. When the Ambassador makes a speech at some public gathering in a foreign country, I presume he uses your facilities so as to get the widest dissemination of that view? Dr. JOHNSON. That is right; we see that it gets to every newspaper. Mr. MEADER. On the other hand, anything that you want to originate to sell the United States would be immediately subject to the Ambassador's approval or disapproval? Dr. JOHNSON. That is right. In other words, he couldn't do anything, as I understand it, unless it was based on the guidance of foreign policy from the Secretary of State, you see. He might say "I won't do this," or "This is the way to do it," but he couldn't go off on the wrong track because he would get from us guidance that I would get in turn from the Secretary of State, and he would go back to the Secretary of State and probably discuss it. Mr. BROWNSON. In other words, you and he would be operating under the same policy exactly? Dr. JOHNSON. That is right. Mr. MEADER. Now, my question is this: If I correctly understand your function and what has been a traditional function of our Foreign Service is it not true that even more than the mutual security program, which is a grant program-for economic and military assistance, is it not even more imperative that there be unity between the official spokesman of the United States and the agency for disseminating the expressions of the United States? Dr. JOHNSON. That is right. As a matter of fact, we would get a certain number of things from the State Department probably every month that would be official statements, but they would be so labeled, you see; and other information that would go out would not be official, it would be background information, or some way or means we have of getting over a point of view; we will be also the official agency, but all official statements for example, a speech by the President or by the Secretary of State will be so labeled, and when it gets out into the field it will be official information; it won't be just IIA information. Mr. MEADER. Well, my questions are based upon my concern that removing the information service farther away from the State Department may be even more inappropriate than would be the case with the operations of the Mutual Security Agency, and I wonder. if you agree with me on that. Dr. JOHNSON. No, sir; because I have been sort of an amateur student of government. I was a member of one of the task forces of the Hoover Commission and was for three and a half years Chairman of the Citizens Committee to carry out the recommendations of the Hoover Commission, and I learned a good deal about the executive branch. It is my feeling that if you have the right people and if you have confidence in each other, it is better to have the information all in one package for MSA, TCA, GOA, State Department, and have it under a man who can be trusted, and work closely with the Secretary of State, and they will have a liaison that will be effectively speaking hourly. Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Meader, will you yield at that point? Mr. BROWNSON. Dr. Johnson quoted the Hickenlooper committee and the study they made of this subject, the Hickenlooper subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate. They bring out the same point you do on page 24 of their conclusions and recommendations. They make their statement: New administration and greater autonomy for the information program within the Department of State might make possible the realization of the advantages of separation without the disadvantages that separation involves. Now, that gets right down to the nut of what you are talking about, and the big problem with which this committee is faced, and that is the problem of what can be gained under this separation that could not be gained under a plan that would give greater autonomy within a reorganized Department of State. Dr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, if you read on further, there is a statement beginning with the word "but" three lines below. Mr. BROWNSON. Yes; I recognize they finally did approve the plan, but I think their viewpoint there expresses the viewpoint Mr. Meader is trying to express, and a viewpoint which we will have to combat and discuss on the floor of the House in putting over this plan. Dr. JOHNSON. That is right, but I do think from my talks with members of the so-called Hickenlooper committee-I guess there is a different name for it than the Hickenlooper committee Mr. BROWNSON. It is the special subcommittee created pursuant to Senate Resolution 74, and the technical name is Committee on Overseas Information Programs of the United States. Dr. JOHNSON. Well, I have been very much impressed with the thought and preparation put into their work. They have been studying this information program for a good many months. Mr. Mundt is on that committee, and other men that are quite interested in it, and Mr. Hickenlooper, I think, is exceedingly well informed. I didn't know how they were going to conclude their final meeting, whether they were going to come out for the State Department or not, because they were well aware of many things you are pointing out, but their final conclusion was that if the exchange programs-as our chairman said later—perhaps they should very appropriately stay in the State Department, because you have to arrange transportation for meeting people, and there are certain things they know how to do beautifullyif they stay in the State Department they would favor having the separate agency. Mr. BROWNSON. Can you give us a brief report in your own words again, and as a sort of summation, what can this new agency achieve that you can't achieve with greater autonomy with the old agency under a reorganized Department of State? Dr. JOHNSON. I think it would be better to put it in this order. In the first place, we will have greater flexibility of operation; we will be able to get things done more quickly. Right now, for example, it is necessary to go through certain routines; it takes a good deal of time to get certain things done-I would like to have this off the record, if it is possible, sir. Mr. BROWNSON. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BROWNSON. On the record. Dr. JOHNSON. Mr. Martin Merson is a former resident of Easton, Pa., and an ardent worker for the recommendations of the Hoover commission, in which work we became fast friends. When he learned I was coming to Washington we discussed the matter, and I invited him to come along and be my chief assistant. He is a Naval Academy graduate, class of 1928; he retired from the Navy in 1930; was called back into service, and he had a magnificent war record. After 18 months in the hospital he was finally discharged. Before going back into the service he worked his way through Harvard Law School and graduated with great credit to himself. He is down here now as a patriotic duty, and he has been a very great aid to me and has made a very wonderful study of various problems. Among them were the problems connected with our programing, and he and I together felt that it was quite appropriate for us to develop religious broadcasts because, after all, there are many, many millions of people, probably 800 million behind the iron curtain, that are being deprived of religious education and deprived from going to their spiritual homes, and often their spiritual homes have been burned down. So with the help of Mr. Merson I have developed contacts with Cardinal Spellman and some of the leading rabbis, and we hope to develop as a part of our broadcasts appropriate religious programs to the countries that are appropriate to receive those particular programs. Mr. BROWNSON. Just to tie the record so there will not be a nonsequitur here, he did develop the particular broadcasts you were referring to in the off-the-record discussion, the Hungarian Church broadcast. Mr. MERSON. I discovered in investigating this problem of religion that there was a tremendous timidity, which is natural in this country because of our belief in separation of church and state. It was my feeling that more than our high state of economic development, the fact that we were a country where spiritual and religious matters could be freely practiced, was a big plus and that we should sell that to the world, or at least present ourselves to the world as people who permitted freely the practice of all religions, and so I set out and looked into the situation very carefully. |