Mr. KARSTEN. A list of certain employees of the State Department appeared in the Congressional Record, I think, of February 20, 1950. The list was first 208, and then one hundred and something, and then into the nineties, and then 57. At that time there were actually about half of the 57 employed there, and I just wondered if any of these individuals are still employed in the Department of State. General SMITH. I am sorry, but I am not familiar with that list. Mr. BROWNSON. May I suggest that that is not particularly pertinent as to the reorganization plan now under consideration? Mr. KARSTEN. I would have to differ with you there, because we have had people accused of being subversives within the Department of State, and if we are going to reorganize the Department, I would like to know if there are any such people there now. Mr. BROWNSON. Would it satisfy the gentleman's inquiry if we have our staff inquire into that question and supply the Department of State's official answer? Mr. KARSTEN. I would like to have that information. I would like to ask one question now. Are there now any Communists employed in the Department, sir? General SMITH. That is a very difficult question to answer. You are asking me now as a Government official. I will have to answer it this way: As far as the knowledge and experience and ability of the Secretary of State and all of his assistants are concerned, there are not, but it would take somebody of far less fallibility than I am to say to you categorically that in any department of the Government there is not-I repeat "not"-somewhere a Communist. Nobody can do that. Mr. BROWNSON. In other words, you have not had a chance to check over your complete inheritance yet and take inventory. General SMITH. We have checked, rechecked, and doublechecked, and I say the same thing about the State Department that I once said about another activity that I headed. There is no way that you can absolutely assure this Congress or anybody else categorically that there is not somewhere a Communist. Mr. KARSTEN. The reason I asked, Mr. Secretary, we heard so much talk about Communists within the State Department last year, and I wondered if any Communists have been discharged since the first of the year. General SMITH. To my knowledge since the first since the first of the year I do not know. Mr. KARSTEN. I would like to have that information. Mr. BROWNSON. We will be very happy also to request the information as to the number of Communists, perverts and other "controversial employees" that have been discharged since the first of the year. Mr. LANTAFF. I think we have that information as a matter of record over the past 5 years. Mr. BROWNSON. We do, in the subcommittee hearings. Mr. LANTAFF. I think it exceeds over 2,000 in the last 5 years. Mr. KARSTEN. I am anxious to know from the first of the year. Mr. BROWNSON. We will be very glad to request that information over such a period as you desire. (See appendix, p. 218.) Mr. KARSTEN. I do want to compliment the Secretary on his fine presentation, and I can tell him that I certainly am anxious to confirm the historic responsibility within the Department of State. General SMITH. Thank you very much. Mr. KARSTEN. Thank you. General SMITH. Incidentally, sir, since this question has come up, I would like if I may, Mr. Chairman, to make one gratuitous observation for the benefit of this committee. I have been a career soldier all my life, and I have had the reputation of being a hard and exacting taskmaster. I thought that in organizations which I have commanded or staffs which I have headed there was about as high a degree of devotion to duty as I have ever seen, but I have never seen it exceeded except by the career personnel that have worked for me since I have been in the State Department, never, and I am very glad to have that recorded officially. The CHAIRMAN. Off the record. Mr. BROWNSON. Dr. Judd. Mr. JUDD. May I say one thing along the line we were discussing yesterday, and I presume that it has been discussed more, but I have been on the floor with another matter, and have not had a chance to be here. I was thinking last night, General, that one reason why we should have increased centralization in the MSA and in the Defense Department is because both of those are operating agencies primarily. After all, the Defense Department is not so much a policy-forming agency as an operating agency. You have people carrying guns or carrying on some other important activities. The MSA is also primarily an operating agency, so there is good sense in putting together the various foreign aid operating functions under the MSA. In contrast the State Department is primarily a policy-determining agency which policies both MSA and the Defense Department to a large degree work to carry out; is that not correct? General SMITH. I think that puts it extremely well, Dr. Judd. As a matter of fact, before you came in I tried to express that similar thought. Mr. McCORMACK. General, do you mean to say that the Defense Department is not a policy-making agency? General SMITH. It is a policy-making agency, Mr. McCormack, but it is vastly more concerned with operations. The State Department, on the contrary, as Dr. Judd pointed out, is vastly more concerned with policy than with operations. I say "vastly more," and they are both concerned with policy and both with operations, but the Department of Defense is primarily an institution for carrying out policy. The State Department is primarily an institution for making foreign policy, although it is directly concerned with the application of that policy in its execution. Mr. McCORMACK. I am very much concerned with what some of the questions Mr. Brownson asked yesterday brought up and which represent my state of mind; that I am asked to vote for centralization, to summarize it, in the case of the reorganization plan on the Defense Department, which I did, and I am asked now on this particular plan to vote for decentralization. It is rather hard for me to reconcile the two plans in that respect. I personally believe in giving power. Most of my colleagues disagree with me. I am not afraid of the centralization of power in the hands of good men, and we have plenty of restraints under our form of government, and here I am with two different plans basically the opposite of one another that I am concerned about. General SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I think I might answer this way: Actually I think that Dr. Judd has sounded the real keynote of the thing, but the fact is, if I could revert to it, if you take the difference between the MSA or the Foreign Operations Agency and the State Department itself, it is practically one of tactical operation by the MSA as against the formulation of the strategic plans and strategic operations by the State Department. Those two have to be tied together, all right, but you have to give the man who conducts your tactical operations a good deal of independent latitude. The reason for the difference in these two concepts, that is, Defense versus State, was just put in a nutshell by Dr. Judd, and very well, I think. Mr. MCCORMACK. I do not see where there is very much latitude under this plan given to the new agency, because he is certainly pretty well tied up under the directions of the President, not only on a higher echelon level, but also on a level when it gets out into the several countries under the ambassador. There does not seem to me to be much discretion there under this new plan to the director of the new agency. General SMITH. Mr. McCormack, I should like to make it very clear, and I know Mr. Stassen who is going to follow me at 11 will emphasize it, that there are extremely important operating decisions which Mr. Stassen has to make. He has direct access to the President on operational decisions that are important, and the only requirements that are laid on the head of that operational agency are that where it is a matter of foreign policy, he shall receive his guidance and direction from the Secretary of State, and if any question arises which is important enough to warrant laying before the President, it is to be raised in such a way that Mr. Stassen or the head of that operational agency has assured ahead of time the concurrence or participation of the Secretary of State, and that would be equally true for the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Defense. Mr. McCORMACK. Practically everything this new agency does either concerns itself with foreign policy or has an effect on foreign policy. General SMITH. So it does, but so does the Department of Defense have an effect on foreign policy, too, and so does Treasury, you must remember. We have gotten to the point now with this world leadership which we have been forced to assume so that almost everything we do has a very profound effect on foreign policy. The deliberations of this body itself have an extremely profound effect on foreign policy, as you well know. Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. McCormack, I think we are going to have to move on if those members at the end of the table are to have an opportunity to ask their questions. Mr. Secretary, there are several questions that have been developed, some of which are detailed questions, and we would very much like to have an answer from you for inclusion in the record before we have to vote on this matter. In order to conserve time, to keep as close to the schedule with Mr. Stassen as we can, I am going to go rapidly around the balance of the committee, and I would like to know if you would be willing to answer those other questions in written form. General SMITH. Indeed, yes. Mr. BROWNSON. I will ask the staff to accumulate questions for which we do not have time today, from any of the members and ask the Secretary if we could have those answers very quickly so they can be printed in the minutes. This would be helpful to us, conserve your time, and also that of Mr. Stassen. Mr. Hoffman, did you have a question? General SMITH. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. I have one statement I want to make. I heard your tribute to those who are working with you, and without in any way directly or indirectly questioning it or detracting from the statement, because I do not know anything about it, I do want to call your attention to the fact that over the years, the last 10 years, for example, the public has become aware through the press and the court records that in the State Department there has been or was at one time a larger percentage of homosexuals than in any other department, and when you come along with a statement of praise, without any reference to those individuals who are there now, I think the record should show that others of the character to which reference was made have been there in the past years. I do not know whether any are there now or not, but there should be some desire to get them out if there are such because our people are just as much opposed to that group of people as they are to the Communists. General SMITH. I challenge your statement, Mr. Hoffman. The CHAIRMAN. You can challenge it if you want to, but the court records down here show it, and the press has shown it over the years, as have congressional investigations. We have had down there a dirty, nasty group, and I for one do not propose to keep quiet about it if or when that situation exists. General SMITH. Neither do I, sir, when it is made that way, and if the chairman will excuse me, I will take my departure. Mr. BROWNSON. I would prefer, Mr. Secretary, if you would, in consideration for the members at the bottom of the table, answer for about 5 minutes a few questions they have. General SMITH. Yes, indeed. The CHAIRMan. If you do not know it, the members down there can advise you. You might ask Dr. Judd if you want information as to the situation in other years. Mr. BROWNSON. Order, please. The committee is not in order. I would like to give the other members a fair chance to question the witness. I will ask each member if he cannot be very brief. Mr. IKARD. I will defer the questions I have in mind to Mr. Stassen. I know the Secretary is pressed for time. Mr. BROWNSON. Are there any members of the committee who have additional questions? If you have additional questions, we will be very happy if you will give them to the committee staff, and we will submit them for written answer. General SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will have them down in time for publication. (NOTE. The questions and answers appear in the appendix, p. 207.) Mr. BROWNSON. This afternoon, sir? Mr. Osmers? Mr. OSMERS. No questions. Mr. BROWNSON. Dr. Judd? Mr. JUDD. No questions. Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Fountain? Mr. FOUNTAIN. I will ask Mr. Stassen the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWNSON. Do you have any questions? Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, thank you very much. Mr. PILCHER. No questions. Mr. BROWNSON. Mr. Bender? Mr. BENDER. Obviously from what you have observed and from what you know, we only have one member of this committee who comes from Missouri, but unfortunately regarding the State Department the vibrations of the Congress have not been too good, and whether justifiable or not. I appreciate personally your forthright statement regarding this program, and I think it is highly essential that all the proponents of this plan come forward with as forthright a statement as you have so that we might get along with it. Mr. McCORMACK. All I can say is that General Bedell Smith, not to flatter him-I say it to his face, and I have said it behind his back-is one of the outstanding Americans of his time. Mr. BENDER. I agree. Mr. BROWNSON. I am very proud of my constituent. Mr. BROWNSON. I think Mrs. Harden has a question. Mrs. HARDEN. I regret it was impossible for me to hear all of the general's statement this morning, but I do appreciate the information which you have brought to us in support of the plan. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROWNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your being with us. There will be about a 2-minute recess while Mr. Stassen and his people change places with the Secretary here. (Whereupon a short recess was taken.) Mr. BROWNSON. The meeting will come to order after the recess. Our next witness will be the Honorable Harold E. Stassen, Director for Mutual Security. Mr. Stassen, I believe you have a prepared statement. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD E. STASSEN, DIRECTOR FOR MUTUAL SECURITY Mr. STASSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and Chairman Hoffman, and members of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stassen, I have turned over this matter to Mr. Brownson, who knows all about it, I guess, and I do not know anything about it, if you will excuse me. Mr. STASSEN. Mr. Chairman, I believe the members of the committee have the statement. I can go through it and respond to such questions that the committee may have. |