Page images
PDF
EPUB

As a result of these investigations, not only the Voice of America-that is only one of our media-but the libraries, for example, were terribly short and deficient in the whole field of religion. They were very timid, but recently we have developed a packet of books which cover the principal religions of the world and treat of religious subjects, the dogma, the real basic content of religion.

We have increased the amount of actual religious content going over the Voice of America. We have departed from the mere treatment of religion by way of sermon and that sort of thing, and we are actually broadcasting, not proselytizing specific countries, but giving them the principal religions which prevail in those countries, so that on Mother's Day we gave Hungary Roman Catholic services and Protestant reform services.

We propose to develop this so that the target areas, for example, of the Far East will get the religions which are predominant in those

areas.

One interesting thing which is developing from this is that we are actually, I am sure, going to be able to get the three principal religious faiths in this country to sit down around the table and iron out their differences so far as enabling us to gain their support and strengthen our position in the world, and we already see a remarkable development in that direction.

Mr. BROWNSON. And in that particular instance, you feel that the creation of an autonomous information service would be beneficial over an information service where you had to clear all those policies in detail with the Department of State as you do now?

Mr. MERSON. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWNSON. I just wanted to bring that in so as to tie in the discussion with the record.

Proceed.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, before he goes on, may I say that during the consideration of these reorganization plans which propose a change from the existing situation, I have felt that those who advocate the plan should be prepared by examples of specific situations to show in what way the existing structure is not operating effectively.

Dr. JOHNSON. We touched on that a moment ago.

Mr. MEADER. Now, we apparently go off the record when anything happens that would argue this point, and notwithstanding this general administrative principle of not separating operations from policy, which I believe most everybody agrees on as a general principle of administration, we don't have in our record the justification for the change, and I think we ought to have it.

Mr. BENDER. All of the prepared statements presented to the committee were forthright and clear.

Mr. MEADER. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, because I don't think I made myself completely clear, at least from the remarks of my good colleague from Ohio, I suspect that the basis for both of these separations from the State Department, that is, the Director for Foreign Operations Administration and the Information Service, is because of dissatisfaction of the operating people in those two activities with the cooperation that they got from the Department of State, and their programs in the past, in the judgment of these operating people, have suffered from the delay and procrastination involved in operating under the Department of State and they would like freedom

from that delay, and that they expect to operate more effectively when they get their autonomy, but the record

Mr. BROWNSON. The chairman has always held that anything that could possibly be put on the record should be there, and I wonder if Dr. Johnson would like to consult-as far as the book incident is concerned, I think that is pretty well in the public domain. I do agree with Mr. Meader that the balance of our colleagues have a right to know why you think this separation is necessary, and certainly these incidents serve as an example.

Dr. JOHNSON. That is right. I will be glad to do whatever you think is wise. Mr. Merson has 4 or 5 examples at his fingertips. Do you want him to mention them?

Mr. BROWNSON. You understand this is no attempt to criticize, but we are trying to point out where the administrative structure stands in the present situation as a justification for a change.

Mr. MERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my remarks by reinforcing the statement which you made. There is no intention on my part to criticize the State Department. I am sure that all of the people at all levels in the State Department are endeavoring to cooperate with our particular agency in every way possible.

It is a fact, however-and this is something that I think we must. keep constantly in mind-that the Secretary of State is in effect putting his name on a simple thing like a book directive going to 188 libraries all over the field. That means that Mr. Dulles has personally in many, many instances, and particularly in view of our experience with books over the past 3 months, got to spend endless hours, which are precious hours, actually, when you consider his responsibility for far more important things than the kind of books we have in our libraries overseas. The result is that either he delegates that to a very low level, which slows up the fast-moving operation which an information program has to be if it is to be anything, or else he has to take the time himself.

In the particular book situation Mr. Dulles has spent many, many hours, far too many hours on this problem. He has spent those hours, I regret to say, without the benefit of the great background of knowledge and experience which an individual needs to have to write the kind of book directive that we need if we are to avoid criticism.

The situation is so complex in the book field that Mr. Dulles has got to go on spending time. Dr. Johnson and I have to hurry from this meeting to meet with him on this particular problem.

The kind of directive which was issued in that particular case I feel sure was essentially an operating directive. It was instructions not in the field of foreign policy, and yet I understand that Mr. Dulles, in the 2 weeks which elapsed after Dr. Johnson reported, spent endless hours himself helping to prepare that particular directive.

This is by no means a criticism of Mr. Dulles, because anyone who will examine that directive fairly will find that it is an honest attempt to clean out of our libraries the kind of books which should not be in them.

The problem which has arisen in the book field illustrates one point, and I feel it has been exaggerated out of all proportion. One hundred and eighty-eight separate libraries headed by 188 separate librarians have had to interpret what is a Communist, what is a fellow traveler. There is no such list in the Government today. The Department of

Justice hasn't given us one; the State Department security office, has not furnished us one; and Congress has not furnished us with one; with the result that we are almost in an impossible position.

Now, I personally feel that that particular situation—and again I am not criticizing the State Department-could very well have been avoided had we been a separate agency charged with the responsibility · for putting out operating instructions to the field which do not concern themselves with basic foreign policy of the United States.

I think that is a simple explanation of a problem which has brought great discredit to this administration and to this country.

Mr. BROWNSON. Do you have possibly another example in that line? That type of thing is very helpful in establishing a reason for this step.

Dr. JOHNSON. I have an example of one that occurs to me, and if you wish this on the record, all right, but I would rather have it off, unless you decide you wish me to repeat it for the record; we could do it that way.

Mr. BROWNSON. Very well. However, if you could possibly think it over so it could be on the record-we are faced with a situation where we are representing 435 Members and

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Chairman, would it be permissible to put it on the record and, after second thought, if he thinks it should be stricken we could strike it. Otherwise, we are not going to get the full impact of what he is going to tell us.

Mr. BROWNSON. We will certainly extend the doctor the courtesy of permitting him to correct his testimony and amend it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the other day a story was published which came out of Hollywood in which it was stated that I had drafted, I think, 28 people out there to do certain work for the moving-picture program and some of them were questionable persons.

Well, in the first place, I never drafted the 28, and the inference was very unpleasant, and I prepared a denial and sent it over to the State Department at 4 o'clock. I called at 5 o'clock to see whether it had been cleared, and found it hadn't been, and I raised cain because I wanted it denied in the next morning's papers, and it wasn't released in time to be denied. Mr. DeMille, who has been giving of his time and thought, was so concerned about it, because he was getting telephone calls saying "What kind of a bunch are you playing with down there in Washington?" that I think he called six times-didn't he?-that day.

I was out most of the time. Do you recall that?

Mr. MERSON. Well, it is a fact that the release was unduly delayed, at least in our opinion. Had it only had to be cleared by Dr. Johnson and our own press department, it could have gone out much earlier. That is only one, gentlemen, of many examples of the kind of delays; but I would like to focus your minds, if you will, on the other side of the coin.

We have been advocating here today this separation because we feel that it is better for us, meaning the new agency with Dr. Johnson, so that we can do a better job.

I would like to emphasize, in all fairness to Mr. Dulles and to his staff, the importance of freeing him from the responsibility for what is really essentially operating problems which do not concern foreign policy, and to the extent that we can relieve Mr. Dulles of this type of

thing and you can only do that when you can write letters and send telegrams and issue instructions which do not carry his name, because the moment you do so, as long as you remain in the State Department, Mr. Dulles has full responsibility. I wish to urge that in these perilous times when it is so important for the Secretary of State to be free to make the momentous decisions which have to be made, it is most important that we free him from every onerous and burdensome responsibility which can possibly be lifted from his shoulders.

I could cite you many, many examples. They sound like carping criticisms of delays that have arisen in the past 3 months-but they are all of the same order. The State Department is a large organization, and we have to go through the routine process of getting clearances all up and down the line. It slows up the work; and, particularly in the informational field where speed is of the essence. Once the general instructions have been issued the decision is made as to what our foreign policy is, then it is a matter of implementing that, and the implementation has to be done quickly if it is to mean anything. News does not live very long.

Dr. JOHNSON. I would like to overcome an impression you gentleman may have, Mr. Chairman, and that is that we are chiefly anxious to be separated because of the inability to work quickly on things. That is kind of frustrating when you want to do a job, but that isn't nearly as important, in my judgment anyway, as being in the position to go out as an independent agency and go to industry and hire the best men in America to do the job. We ought to have the finest bunch in America helping run this show.

I mentioned a few minutes ago the size of our broadcasting operations. I asked one of the ablest men in the United States, who happens to be out of a job now, because he was chairman of the board of the Mutual network, and he just couldn't afford to come; he would like to come; he came along as consultant. But there are very few people in the radio field who are qualified to do that job, and we ought to have a man that in commercial life can make $130,000 or $150,000 a year. That is a tremendous operation.

In the press business, ours is probably bigger than UP and AP together; it is a big operation. I wanted to get somebody like Kent Cooper from AP, or Byron Price, who is up at United Nations, or the present head of INS, Mr. Bergson, whom I was told about. That is the kind of person. Now, they are much more interested, they tell me, in coming to a setup that is run independently, has greater dignity than coming to work for a bureau in a big department. In other words, I think we can build a certain prestige. I think if a man comes to Washington and gives up a $150,000 a year job, or a $200,000 a year job the way Mr. Cheever Cowdin is willing to do, to head up our movies, I think it is only human for him to feel he is in a dignified spot even though he is not making much money, and not just in a comparatively unimportant division of a great department. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Meader.

Mr. MEADER. I don't want to leave any misunderstanding on my position on this matter.

Dr. JOHNSON. No, sir.

Mr. MEADER. In my opinion, the State Department and its activities are today, in the condition that world affairs are in today, the most

important activity of the Federal Government. I believe that the Department should be strengthened. I think there have been inadequacies, and the delays that you cite in the answering of adverse news stories cannot be more important than the need to arrive at a prompt and intelligent decision on our foreign policy. What bothers me about this removal from the State Department is that because of the inadequacies of the past we say this job must be taken out, and every time you take a responsibility away from an organization that is not doing it well, it seems to me you have a tendency to weaken that organization. To me, the most important thing we can do today, with one possible exception, and I would put them on the same level, that is the strengthening of Congress, is to strengthen the State Department. I think that if they have a responsibility and are not doing it properly the course we should follow is not to take that responsibility away from them but to find out why they aren't discharging that responsibility effectively and to help strengthen them so that they will discharge it effectively. That is what bothers me about these plans which take away from the State Department the responsibility of carrying out our relationships with other countries in the matter of information, expressing our views, in the matter of handling public funds for foreign-aid programs, because when you get through you have an agency that has no operating responsibility and it seems to me you weaken the agency which most needs strengthening in our Government today.

Dr. JOHNSON. Well, I am very interested in hearing your point of view, and I know there are other fine men who feel as you do. But when I came down here, as a matter of fact, Mr. Dulles invited me to discuss this matter with him and I said, "Well, Mr. Dulles, in my opinion the agency will never attain stature, become an important, respected outfit, as long as it is sort of buried in the huge State Department," and I said I wouldn't assume the responsibility of running that organization unless it was an independent operation.

He said, "You feel exactly the way I do about it. I believe it is an operating agency and it should be outside the State Department," and he said, "If you want to come down here, and I need you"-at that time Dr. Compton had resigned-"I think you can assume you will have my full support toward that end." I didn't want to comemy university right now is trying to build a $9 million medical center; it is the worst time in the world to come; we are still trying to raise $212 million-but I decided to come.

[ocr errors]

I think the Secretary of State's own attitude has to be taken into consideration in that matter.

Mr. BROWNSON. It certainly has; it is a big matter.

Dr. JOHNSON. And he feels it very strongly.

Mr. BROWNSON. Doctor, I wonder if we could get a few quick committee questions on the record here to sort of round out this whole thing, if we can, and make the answers as brief as is consistent with the questions; then we can go on with this other line of questioning, but I would like to get these in the record.

Mr. MEADER. I only intend to ask him one question. I have to be excused.

Mr. BENDER. Do you feel better about this plan as a result of having heard Dr. Johnson?

Mr. MEADER. Well, I feel I understand it better.

« PreviousContinue »