In other words, I am saying that it is my understanding that important recommendations will reach the President through the same channels in which they reach the President today.

Senator SYMINGTON. Will the Senator yield?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Then why is there specific exception to the man reporting through the Secretary of State? Anything reaches the President through the National Security Council, an advisory body to the President at highest level. Why would it not just be better to have him report to the Secretary of State, with decisions made in the Security Council, subject of course to the President?

General LEMNITZER. That was the basis of my discussion with McCloy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff indicated that they hoped important recommendations would reach the President through the National Security Council, at which time the Secretary of Defense and the other members of the National Security Council, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sitting with the Secretary of Defense on the National Security Council, could make appropriate comments on the recommendations.

Senator SYMINGTON. I think the testimony this morning was that the head of this Agency would speak to the President and keep the Secretary of State informed of the fact he was doing so. would the National Security Council come into that?

Where

General LEMNITZER. I was not here this morning, Senator Symington, and I do not know the line that the discussion took. However, I have discussed this extensively with Mr. McCloy, who has assured me that no change is contemplated in the manner in which recommendations of the Agency would reach the President.

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. McCloy is here. One of the reasons I asked him to come back here this afternoon, Senator Symington, is because I know of your deep concern and mine, too, I might add, as to the structure of this Agency.

I do know there are things on which honorable men can have honorable disagreements as to how an agency that has certain objectives is patterned.

Mr. McCloy, I would like to get your comment with reference to this question that has been raised very properly by Senator Symington. Senator Sparkman?

Senator SPARKMAN. Before he answers, I would like to ask this question which he can answer at the same time: Does it really make any difference whether a matter goes through the Secretary of State or the National Security Council? The ultimate authority is the President of the United States and what is available to him is available to the National Security Council and likewise to the Secretary of State. In other words, they all three function for the same purpose and two of them on the same level, both responsible for reporting to the President of the United States.

Senator HUMPHREY. Senator Symington?

Senator SYMINGTON. First, in an effort to answer the able Senator from Alabama, nothing makes any difference if the President does not want to have it a particular way. I thought these hearings were an effort to approve a simple and direct organization.

Senator SPARKMAN. I am not arguing; I am asking for information.

Senator SYMINGTON. The sentence I quote here is from Secretary Rusk's testimony. He says:

For this reason, the President's letter transmitting the bill to Congress explained that the Director as the principal adviser to the President, in the disarmament field, will have direct access to him but will, of course, notify the Secretary of State as to the occasion and substance of the advice he offers. Mr. McCloy and I

says Secretary Rusk

understand this to mean that the Secretary shall be fully and continually informed of matters that the Director shall take up with the President,

Now, I recognize that General Lemnitzer is in the chain of command and he has made his position known on this and I wanted the record clear. To the best of my knowledge, Secretary Rusk, and I may be wrong, but I do not remember Mr. McCloy either giving any testimony to the effect this matter will be taken up specifically through the National Security Council. Based on my understanding of the function of the executive branch, I simply wanted to place in the record these facts.

Senator HUMPHREY. I think that is a very pertinent observation, Senator, and I would like to ask Mr. McCloy's response.

May I say that you three gentlemen are very key witnesses on this bill and we are here to exchange ideas. We are in the process of developing legislation. So go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. McCLOY, ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT ON DISARMAMENT-Resumed

Mr. McCLOY. Well, bear in mind that this Agency does not decide on policy. It provides the material by which policy can be adopted. It provides, for the reasons I gave this morning, to the Secretary of State. He also has this direct access, which I think is a very important aspect of this whole legislation, to the President.

The National Security Council is an instrument by which the President really defines the policy of the country. He has that to help him make his final decisions. In the course of this bill, in this bill, it is provided that we coordinate our policies, even at the point of recommendations to the Secretary of State and to the President, with the other agencies. The other agencies are represented on the National Security Council. Any one of those can, if he wishes, bring this point up to the National Security Council if he feels that this is a matter which the National Security Council ought to deal with.

The President of the United States or the Secretary of State, if he has a question with respect, a fundamental question with respect to this disarmament policy, can put it before the National Security Council. But there is no provision, you are quite right, and I think it would be wrong to have a provision in here, that the Director has to report both to the National Security Council, or I do not know who else it might be, and to the Secretary of State and to the President. I think this would only introduce a great deal of confusion.

It is only at the point where real questions of policy of the country have to be decided that the National Security Council comes into this.

It is at that point that the President can or any one of the members of the Cabinet can put this on the agenda of the National Security Council. But if the Director had to consult with the National Security Council, for example, as to what studies or researches he should conduct or how operations for the control of an inspection system in the field can be conducted, it would be fantastic if he had to

Senator SYMINGTON. Let me say, Mr. McCloy, that I did not recommend he should report. I said it would be superfluous, because the National Security Council is but an advisory agent to the President. The point I was trying to get at is that General Lemnitzer, under questioning, has pointed out how anxious the Joint Chiefs, and presumably the Secretary of Defense would be to take a look at decisions, before the matter was finally decided by the Secretary of State.

In the original bill of 1947, the service Secretaries sat on the National Security Council. Then the law said they should have access to the President if they disagreed with their Chief, the Secretary of Defense. Both were later changed. There can only be one head. I would like to see the line of organization and function clarified. It is a subject that is all important to security.

Mr. McCLOY. Well, as I see it, it seems to me quite clear. We are not disturbing the policy-determining agencies or functions of the President or the Government. The National Security Council is an adjunct of the President. It helps enable him to make his final decision as to what policy is to be. It gives the appropriate agencies their day in court to state their point of view. This does not interfere with that one iota.

It is quite wrong, however, I think, to make the statute provide that the Director of this Agency sould report to the National Security Council or through the National Security Council and I might give an example as to how this operates. We have been getting clearances around town on negotiating positions, both for the test ban and for my discussions with Mr. Zorin on the bilaterals and also on the preparation of the comprehensive plan. They are reported to the Secretary of State, and to the President. Frequently, the Secretary of State and the President, or the President and/or call in the Committee on Principals or, in the one case, as I recall, the President called in the National Security Council to deal with some problems that he wanted to have discussed.

Finally, a decision was made that the policy that was recommended by the Administration-that is, by the Disarmament Administration, or it might have been the case with some modification of that policy, it was adopted as a result of these discussions with the National Security Council and this would take place under this bill just as readily as without it.

Senator SYMINGTON. Unless there is something that is more important about this Agency than any other agency in the Government, and I could not buy that, what would be wrong with having this operate with a Committee of Principals where everybody would be sure to get a whack at the pigeon, everybody who had a deep and justifiable interest in it?

Mr. McCLOY. This provides the methods of coordination. We now have a method of coordination through the Committee of Principals. That Committee of Principals is still in existence and prẹsumably will continue in existence. But beyond the general provi

sion in this bill that the Director with the Secretary of State and the President can work out methods of coordination, I think that we would clutter it up with a provision or a requirement that in every case it would have to go to the Committee of Principals. We would have more delays, more confusion, than we have had in the past and it would not be workable.

Senator SYMINGTON. Are you saying that every decision has to be made by the President?

Mr. McCLOY. Many times, it does not have to go to the President. It is only when you have a difference of view, when you have a situation where you have to compose varying points of view that you call in the Committee of Principals.

Senator SYMINGTON. You may coordinate them afterward. But the difference of opinion might come after the decision was made.

Mr. McCLOY. Well, certainly, you do not take to the President of the United States all of the questions relating to disarmament or relating to a negotiating position. It is only when there is a substantial difference of view, where he thinks, or the Secretary of State or a Cabinet member feels that there is a real point of issue which he would like to have debated. Then it can be done and it is done.

The reason for this duality that troubles you, Senator, in my judgment, is because this is somewhat sui generis. It is somewhat new. Disarmament does affect a lot of different aspects of national life. A lot of these things cannot be determined by the Secretary of State alone. There are shifts that may have to be made as a matter of expedition and efficiency in terms of, let us say, some seismological research.

Senator SYMINGTON. That was the reason for the formation of the National Security Council. Mr. Forrestal and some of your friends and I got the idea, was it not?

Mr. McCLOY. I would like to go into the history of that. I was there when it was born.

Senator SYMINGTON. So was I.

Mr. McCLOY. It was because we did not have any coordination around town and a lot of decisions had to be made and many of them had to be composed before they ever got to the President and that was the original thing you remember that-out of which the National Security Council arose.

This does not go into that. It only provides the center and focal point out of which knowledgeability with respect to policy can be gathered. The fact that we have it the way it is here, in reporting to the Secretary of State and with right of access to the President, is because there are some things that are just not within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State at all. You have to go to the President to pick up an operation that may be going on over in the Defense Department that would be more appropriate for the Agency to do than the Defense Department to do and the Defense Department may agree with you. The Secretary of State could not do anything about that. It may be a matter that will relate to the Treasury. It may be something in connection with our economy because of the large aspect of this.

When I talked to General Lemnitzer about this, I did not say that I thought we ought to report through the National Security Council,

but I made it clear, and I tried to do that this morning, that we are not impairing in any sense the jurisdiction of the National Security Council to perform its functions as an auxiliary of the Chief Executive.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you.

Stay right there, Mr. McCloy. We may want to touch on things a little more.

Mr. McCLOY. There are some more witnesses here.
Senator HUMPHREY. I know.

EFFECT OF AGENCY'S ESTABLISHMENT ON SECRETARY OF STATE'S

AUTHORITY

Senator SYMINGTON. You are the expert in this field. You do not feel that this will attenuate the authority of the Secretary of State? Mr. McCLOY. No, I really do not, Senator. As I told you this morning, I repelled the idea that we should have a separate Agency, and this is amazing to me, the strength of opinion behind this by reason of our experience, a completely separate Agency, reporting only to the President of the United States. I thought that would derogate from the authority, the prestige, the standing of the Secretary of State. So I plumped, so to speak, for this arrangement. Before I did, I called up, talked to a great many people around town, but I spoke to President Eisenhower, because I knew he had this very deeply in mind. He opposed the idea of a separate Agency reporting directly to the President. When I spelled this out to him, he said, "I think this is the proper solution of this thing."

I do believe if it only reports to the Secretary of State, there is a gap there because this relates to, although primarily to the functions of the Secretary of State and his relationships with foreign countries, in the end, you have to negotiate, you have to communicate with foreign countries, therefore, the Director should report to him, but there are other things that that Director has to do that may require his direct access to the President of the United States. But even in those, even if they are not in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, the provision of this bill is that he must notify the Secretary what he is taking up with the President.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not want to belabor it. It is my understanding that agencies like the Treasury and the Department of Defense are but squares on the checkboard of foreign policy, and that you never get anywhere quickly enough unless there is one director of that policy, subject only to the President, and that is the Secretary of State.

There has been criticism that there were too many people trying to formulate foreign policy. There is no such criticism of the Department of Defense. It is quite clear to the people who are running the Department of Defense, and I think that is the best thing that has happened around this town in a long time. I believe in civilian control.

Mr. McCLOY. Just the point I am trying to make, that in respect of foreign relations, the Secretary of State, subject to the President, is king. This bill recognizes that. But there are some things in connection with domestic affairs over which he has no jurisdiction at all, where it might be necessary for this man to go to the President of the United States.