Изображения страниц

They may have suggestions to make. How is that going to be handled, and how expeditiously would it be handled ?

Mr. Ball. Well, I think it would be handled very quickly.

First of all, as I mentioned this morning, Mr. Chairman, the great bulk of the changes or deletions will be in the form of suggestions.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. Ball. And they don't have to be accepted by the Defense Department.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. With respect to those which are designated as "required," if an officer feels that this is a mistake he takes it up with the Public Affairs Division in the Pentagon under Mr. Sylvester, and there is a prompt discussion with the State Department.

Senator STENNIS. I know that is your system now. You do not propose to make any changes in that. Specifically, it occurred to me that you could, perhaps, set up a kind of board of directors, or board of appeals within the group that you are going to have working on these very matters. It does not have to be a group of additional men. It could be done by having one from State, one from the Department of Defense, the senior officers, so to speak, who work on these matters, and who could constitute a board of appeals that might be able to thrash out a great many of these matters.

Mr. BALL. We had had in mind, sir, that Mr. Manning, who is the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs of the State Department, and Mr. Sylvester, who has a comparable position in the Department of Defense, would, in effect, be a kind of board of appeals so that they would consider these matters together.

If there was need for further reference, why, we would be prepared to make it.

I may say this, so far as the State Department is concerned, and I would like this to be well-understood, we do not want to be arbitrary in any of these suggested changes, and any officer in the Pentagon who feels that a change is arbitrary and unnecessary, can bring it up through Pentagon channels to the highest element in the State Department.

Senator STENNIS. Well, granting that is fully correct, and

Mr. Ball. Mr. Chairman, may I read to you an excerpt from the Directive, promulgated on the first of December 1961, and entitled, “Procedures for Speech Review and Clearance”. This was in the form of an agreement between the Department of Defense and the Department of State. It reads as follows: Paragraph IV, which is entitled “Procedures for Appealing Changes":

A. The Directorate for Security Reviewthat is part of Mr. Sylvester's staff in the Pentagonand the Policy, Plans and Guidance Staffwhich is under Mr. Manning in the State Department, will discuss initially changes received from the other Departments which may require clarification or otherwise appear to warrant further consideration.

B. In the Department of Defense, the Speaker or his representative may ap peal Department of State changes to the Directorate for Security Reviewthat is Mr. Sylvester's staffwhich office will consult the Policy, Plans and Guidance Staff of the Department of State.

C. In the Department of State, the speaker or his representatives may appeal Department of Defense changes to the Policy, Plans and Guidance Staff, which staff will consult the Directorate for Security Review, Department of Defense.

D. If an appeal cannot be resolved between the Policy, Plans and Guidance Staff and the Directorate for Security Review, the appropriate Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs will be requested to discuss the matter with his counterpart.

That will be Mr. Manning and Mr. Sylvester.
E. Further appeal may be made to high authority if the speaker so desires.
So there is full provision here.


Senator STENNIS. You have an avenue open, all right. There is no question about that. But I was trying to get to the proposition that for many of these features and they may contain serious points, but close questions—it seems to me that, within the working arrangements, there ought to be a group that would compose a board of appeals—perhaps Mr. Tully would be one of them--and someone in the Department of Defense.

Mr. BALL. Well, as it is now, you see, there would be direct relationships between Mr. Tully

Senator STENNIS. Have you finished your statement?
Mr. Ball. Yes. I was just studying this as to how it actually works.
Senator STENNIS. You might want to look over that further.
Mr. BALL. Yes.

Senator STENNIS. What I am interested in is that there be someone available. You have this great volume of speeches. I hope there will be fewer in the future, but there may be more. With this great volume of speeches you are going to have, there has got to be somebody there who will be effective and can serve as a board of appeals, it seems to me, to which they could go very quickly.

I think of an illustration where my colleague, Senator Eastland, and I, with respect to a lot of matters concerning our State, work together very closely and our staffs exchange ideas. But, what if they have to wait for Senator Eastland and myself to decide a lot of these matters? Why, you know, we are somewhere else and have other matters to decide, like Mr. Sylvester and Mr. Manning who have many other matters. It seems to me that you have got to make great improvement now in your plans. If you could have some senior military officer, not necessarily a military officer, but some experienced gentleman who represents the Department of Defense, and Mr. Tully or someone comparable to him, representing the State Department, they could be a focal point for these quick appeals. That might greatly expedite this matter.

I think one of the most provoking things, if I may use that word, about it all is the delay. I have been trying recently to write some speeches. It is a mighty good thing that I did not have to wait for someone to review a speech, get it back, and then have to appeal, because I never would have gotten my speech delivered.

It seems to me that if you get these practical matters worked out, you solve a lot of your problem right there, assuming good faith.


Mr. Ball. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to have the opportunity of discussing this matter with Mr. Sylvester.

Senator STENNIS. Look into it if you would, but not to please me, because it is just something that came to me. But if you get a good appeal procedure set up, then the review process has got a much better chance to work out.

Mr. BALL. I would like to do that.

(Information received subsequently by the subcommittee is as follows:)


Washington, D.O. Hon. JOIIN STENNIS, Chairman, Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed

Services, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: At the close of the June 4 session of your Subcommittee, we discussed the procedure for the expeditious handling of appeals by those writers whose speeches are reviewed by the Departments of State and Defense. At that time you pointed out that existing procedures, while setting out a means of review, do not provide for a formal Board of Appeals.

Since then we have had further discussions with the Department of Defense. As a result, the two Departments have decided to revise the existing appeal proce dures by providing for the establishment of a two-man Board of Appeals to consider instances where responsible staff members of the two Departments are in disagreement regarding the alteration or exclusion of speech material.

This Board will consist of Mr. Robert J. Manning, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, and his opposite number, Mr. Arthur Sylvester, in the Department of Defense.

Under existing procedures, changes made by the State Department in speeches or articles submitted by the Department of Defense are regarded either as advisory or mandatory. If advisory, the Department of Defense has the option either of accepting or rejecting them. With respect to a change regarded as mandatory, the Director for Security Review in Defense may question the decision of the Policy Plans and Guidance Staff of the State Department. If agreement cannot be reached between these two staffs, the matter-under the new procedure—may be referred to the Board of Appeals.

Should the Board of Appeals fail to resolve the question, an appeal can be carried to higher authorities of the two Departments.

In the extraordinary case where time does not permit an attempt to reach an agreement at the staff level, appeals may be taken directly to the Board.

I believe that this revised procedure should contribute to a fair and effective carrying out of the troublesome, but nonetheless necessary, task of reviewing public statements by the two Departments. If experience shows, however, that further changes are necessary, we shall be on the alert to make them. Sincerely yours,




Senator STENNIS. Let me bring another matter to your attention. I am not satisfied yet, with reference to the statements that come before congressional committees in executive session. It seems to me that they ought to be cleared beforehand, if some plan can be worked out that will protect the policy and security of our side, I mean our Government's side, in these matters before they are released to the papers. I think that would clear up a lot of doubts in the minds of the Congress about these matters. It does not have to be a question of clearances. I think you can have rigid cooperation from the congressional committees, in giving an absolute rigid rule that these executive hearings are not going to be released, in whole or in part, until they have been cleared for policy.

Mr. BALL. Right.

Senator STENNIS. But there are problems that go with that because I know in hearings of these committees things get out sometimes.

But it seems to me there would be a mighty small chance of harm coming that way. And it would greatly improve the congressional understanding, I think.

Mr. BALL. I think the situation

Senator STENNIS. Pardon me, if I may make it clear. I just do not like the idea, frankly, of a man, let us say, like Senator Russell, if I may use him as an illustration, who has been on the Armed Services Committee now for more than a quarter of a century and who carries a terrific responsibility, being told by a Chief of Staff or General Powers or comparable men, when they come before him in executive session that their speeches have to be cleared beforehand, even for policy.

Mr. BALL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. That is certainly antagonistic to reason, it seems to me.

Mr. BALL. Right.

Senator STENNIS. And that illustration of Senator Russell could be repeated many times with others or other committees, and some special effort on your part and on the part of the Department of Defense to come up with a plan on that would be helpful.

I am going to make a strong recommendation to this subcommitteeI am just one member—that we have something, or try to get something definite on that point.

Mr. BALL. Right. Well, we will give this consideration, Mr. Chair

Senator STENNIS. I am glad you are; and, of course, it would have to be coordinated with the Department of Defense.

Mr. BALL. Surely.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Kendall, I just wish you would call that to their attention because that is something on which we have got to get down to the practicality of things soon.


SOVIET POLICY OF “COEXISTENCE” Now, Mr. Secretary, may I ask you this: What is your understanding of what the Russians mean when they use that word "coexistence”? What is your interpretation of what they think?

Mr. BALL. I would say when the officials of the Soviet Union use the word “coexistence” it has never seemed to us that it represented the kind of coexistence which was useful to the forces of freedom.

Senator STENNIS. I asked the question just to get your version of it.

Mr. Ball. Because in all too many cases the word has been used as a device for creating a situation in which policies of subversion and so on, can be continued, while a kind of stalemate may result on the military side. So that, as I attempted to suggest a while ago,

is of We have a much more positive policy than that. What we are

. concerned with is advancing the freedom and the ideals in which we believe. We seek to do this within a context where nuclear war is not

the solution, and where we have to avoid the situations which could bring it about, while at the same time not yielding any of our vital interests, and pursuing policies which result in the ultimate triumph of freedom through the world.

This is not a policy which is going to be achieved over night. It is not a policy which is going to be achieved by any one simple immediatè expedient. It is a complex, and it is going to take time and a great deal of steady nerves on the part of the free world.

Senator STENNIS. All right. Thank you. I believe that is all I have.

Senator Thurmond, it is 5:30. Is that a suitable quitting time? Do you have some special question or a few additional ones you want to get in?

Senator THURMOND. No special questions. We will stop any time you want, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Ball, do you have anything additional in mind? Sometimes a question will arouse additional points in your mind.

Mr. Ball. No, I think not, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the committee's permitting me to develop these ideas at such length today.

Senator STENNIS. Very good. "I think it has been a very profitable day, and I am sorry that you cannot be back tomorrow.

We are not trying to rush through, but I think the time has come when all the subcommittee members agree that we ought to complete our hearings just as soon as we can.

Mr. BALL. Unfortunately these were commitments I made a long

Senator STENNIS. I understand. You had a prior commitment. You have to be away Tuesday and Wednesday?

Mr. BALL. Tuesday and Wednesday, yes. I will be available Thursday and Friday.

Senator STENNIS. You can be available Thursday.
Senator Thurmond, can you be here Thursday?
Senator THURMOND. Yes.

Senator STENNIS. All right. With the thanks of the subcommittee to Secretary Ball, the subcommittee will take a recess until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 7, 1962.)

time ago.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »