892

General White knew he was talking about-he knew what he was talking about when he said "potential enemies," did he not? Colonel RASMESSEN. I think so, yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Then he attempted to tell the House Armed Services Committee-and this is important:

"Approximately 90 percent of the general war striking power"90 percent, he is using there, of the general war striking power-and they revised that to read "a very large percentage of the deterrent power."

He did not say "deterrent power"; he said "90 percent of the general war striking power." And they changed it to "a very large percentage of the deterrent power."

Is there not a big difference in that?

Colonel RASMESSEN. In my opinion there is, yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. And he attempted to say, "could place oneeighth of the B-52 force." They changed it to read, "could place a significant portion of the B-52 force."

Now, here is the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, talking to the House Armed Services Committee, giving his opinion as to about what percent of the B-52 force there could be placed, and he told them and said one-eighth of it, and they said "a significant portion."

Well, "a significant portion" to that House committee would not have meant as much as the "one-eighth," which was specific, would it, Colonel?

Colonel RASMESSEN. No, sir, but this, I repeat, is for the public record, this document, the way it was written.

Senator THURMOND. But I am talking about the way it was prepared for him to deliver it to the House Armed Services Committee, and they held this committee, I believe, in executive session, did they not?

Colonel RASMESSEN. As I recall it, it was.

Senator THURMOND. And if it was in executive session, that is the only way we ever have to get information from military people, and if we cannot get it in executive session, how can we ever get it?

Colonel RASMESSEN. I agree 100 percent, Senator, but perhaps part of the trouble here is the mechanics that we had to go through in the development of these statements, as I tried to explain earlier.

Senator THURMOND. I understand the trials and tribulations that some of these speechwriters have had to go through in getting these approved.

Then, on the next page, page 5, "another significant element of our general war strength."

That was revised to say, "another significant element of our ability to deter aggression."

Is there anything wrong with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force referring to "general war strength" when he means to use those words and means what he says and says what he means?

Colonel RASMESSEN. No, sir, not in my opinion.

Senator THURMOND. And then the last one says, "event of war," and they changed that to, "event of aggression.

Is there any objection as to why the Chief of Staff of the Air Force should not use the word "war" when he means war, if that is what he means?

Colonel RASMESSEN. From my point of view, no, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Colonel, does it not seem rather remote to worry about the Communist propaganda machine, when the Chief of Staff of the Air Force was trying to frankly give his views to the House Armed Services Committee?

Colonel RASMESSEN. Sir, I am not

Senator THURMOND. Was it not his duty to give his frank, honest convictions and opinions to this House Armed Services Committee, regardless of what the propaganda machine had to say? How could the committee act otherwise?

Colonel RASMESSEN. Sir, I have no reason to believe he did not. Senator THURMOND. Well, he tried to, but his proposed statement was changed tremendously, was it not, in the respects I mentioned? Colonel RASMESSEN. There were some changes for the public version. Senator THURMOND. Do you know whether or not we were negotiating on anything about March the 14th

Colonel RASMESSEN. Sir, I don't know. I don't recall.

Senator THURMOND. The invasion of Cuba.or anything else? Colonel RASMESSEN. Sir, I have been out of the writing business for about 8 months, and I am not up on my recent history.

Senator THURMOND. Colonel, I want to thank you for your frank and honest answers to those questions that I have asked.

Colonel RASMESSEN. Thank you, sir.

Senator STENNIS. All right, Counsel, do you have any further ques-. tions?

RASMESSEN NOTATIONS ON CHANGES IN WHITE STATEMENT

Mr. KENDALL. No, sir.

I would just like to inquire whether or not these notes have been made a part of the record.

Senator STENNIS. Put this memorandum in the record, and every bit of the speech deletions and changes have already been read twice into the record.

Play everything soft-tone down,

3) States Russians are unhappy because they're unable to pick up provocative phrases for their propaganda.

(4) Mr. Herron—took it higher. Where no one knows.

ENTITLEMENT OF COMMITTEES TO UNRESTRICTED TESTIMONY IN EXECUTIVE

SESSION

Senator STENNIS. Colonel, may I make this further comment in view of your not continuing in your former capacity. It is a matter of vital concern to me that the testimony before the Armed Services Committee of either House be as unrestricted as possible, especially in executive session. It seems to me that we have certainly got to work out a better system and apply it, at least, to a few of these officers, the Chief of Staff of each service, by all means.

Let the deletions come after the testimony has been given.

88735 0-62-pt: 2-34

Now, that will require some cooperative understanding between the legislative branch and the executive branch of the Government, but, certainly, that could be worked out on a basis of understanding. Now, I know, as a practical matter, that after the formal statement is read there are many questions, and I have never heard an officer say, "Well, I can't answer that because there is something in my speech about it and it was taken out in review."

But, at the same time, if the question is asked, I think committees are entitled to forceful language from the beginning, and we are going to have to work out an understanding, it seems to me, that these statements will not be released by the committees until the Department of Defense and the State Department have had a chance to see if anything should be taken out of the statement that is going to the public, in accordance with what they believe, in their judgment, to be correct.

I think this very forcibly illustrates the limitation than can very well detract from the Chief of Staff's original testimony. I do not mean by that to advocate that Chiefs of Staff just be turned loose with no ceiling, because I think that could lead us into serious trouble. I certainly do thank you for your testimony. You have duties in Italy now and I know you want to get back.

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman ?

Senator STENNIS. Yes, Senator Bartlett.

Senator BARTLETT. May I follow this up a bit further, because this seeming handcuffing of a Chief of Staff of a military service bothers me, as it obviously does other members of the committee.

Could it be argued, Colonel, in your opinion, that when he is presenting his formal statement, the Chief of Staff, such as General White, is before a committee in even a larger capacity; that is to say, he represents his Department and presents the administration view, also? Colonel RASMESSEN. Yes, sir, I think he definitely does. That has been my impression.

Senator BARTLETT. And that if questions are subsequently asked him, then inviting his personal opinion, he can use language more vigorous than in a statement that might have had some changes in it, is that right?

Colonel RASMESSEN. Sir, I am really not very qualified to say that. It would be better to ask General White.

Senator BARTLETT. I think that he is given much latitude then. But that does not provide the complete answer, either, because, for example, we know that in response to questions Admiral Rickover on occasion has deviated from what might be considered general policy. At least, we have read that in the newspapers.

But General White, for example, might have had something particularly that he wanted to place before a committee and he had incorporated this in his original statement, and this had been taken out.

Now, perhaps he would be able to bring that out by way of questioning and perhaps he would not, because the appropriate questions might never be asked, unless he had seen to it that there was a loaded question.

I assume he would not ordinarily do such a thing as that. So the fact that he has a certain area of freedom in giving his personal opinion to questions does not necessarily give the committee, par

ticularly in executive session, and the Congress, the information that he might want to convey.

I do not ask for a comment from you on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you.

Members of the subcommittee the colonel wants to go back to Italy, and, barring a complication, the subcommittee can stay a few minutes longer. Let us put Mr. Herron on and see if it might be necessary for the colonel to come back.

You may just step aside, Colonel, but do not leave the room.

Mr. Herron, have a seat.

Senator STENNIS. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Herron?

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS W. HERRON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE POLICY PLANS AND GUIDANCE STAFF, BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. HERRON. Yes, I do, sir, but if you prefer it be delayed until later

Senator STENNIS Do you mind if we take up now the matter about which you heard the colonel testify?

Mr. HERRON. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. I wanted you here so that you could hear his testimony and be familiar with it. May we just proceed informally here, and after you identify yourself, just give a response to the colonel's testimony.

STATE REVIEWS STATEMENTS IF INTENDED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Mr. HERRON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I believe that the point has been well made that no document from the Defense Department goes to the Policy Plans and Guidance Staff of the Department of State for Review, unless it is understood that it is for public release. We do not of course in the Department review any material that goes to the special committees of the Congress in executive session with the view to making any change whatsoever. It is only if it is requested that the material be approved for public release.

Senator STENNIS. Pardon me, requested by whom?

Mr. HERRON. The Department of Defense requests review from the Department of State only if material is for public release.

Senator STENNIS. So unless the Department of Defense had wanted this statement as you say to get in the condition where it could be released, this statement would have never come to you?

Mr. HERRON. If it were for executive session, we would not have reviewed it for that purpose, sir.

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH RASMESSEN NOT RECALLED BY HERRON

Senator STENNIS. Do you remember that that was the particular situation about this statement?

Mr. HERRON. There are a good many statements that came in about that time of the year from the Defense Department that were presen

tations for various committees of the Congress. This was one of a good number, as I recall.

Senator STENNIS. Do you remember this statement?

Mr. HERRON. I do not remember, sir, the circumstances that have been related by Colonel Rasmessen.

Senator STENNIS. You mean you do not remember the telephone conversation?

Mr. HERRON. No, sir. I engage in 2,000 to 3,000 telephone conversations in a year, and I do not recall this telephone conversation with Colonel Rasmessen. I heard of this note.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. HERRON. And as a result, this was some time back, as a result I called Security Review and asked the officials there if they had any recollection or if they knew, because this was out of channels, whether they knew whether or not such a telephone conversation might have taken place.

It was the judgment of an officer in Security Review that there was a telephone conversation, and I accept the fact that there probably was such a telephone conversation. I would like, without reference to the speech

Senator STENNIS. Before you leave that now, have you refreshed your recollection since this was mentioned to you and since hearing the colonel's testimony?

Mr. HERRON. I have no recollection of a conversation with Colonel Rasmessen. When his name was mentioned to me, I had no recollection that I had ever heard of him or held a conversation with him.

Senator STENNIS. May I ask if you had had similar conversations that you can recall with anyone about the time that this occurred? Do you have any recollection like that?

Mr. HERRON. On this matter, sir?

Senator STENNIS. Well, this or a similar speech.

Mr. HERRON. We were in frequent telephone communication with the people in Security Review on many matters, but it was not the ordinary practice to talk to people outside the regular channels.

Senator STENNIS. He was in the regular channels though.

Mr. HERRON. That is not what we would regard as regular channels, sir, because our liaison is with the Office of Security Review. The official record that is made is between the Department of State and our office in the Department and with Security Review. That is the only way, the only official records that we have, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Thurmond, may I pass to you for any examination you have of Mr. Herron? We will come to counsel in just a minute.

EXECUTIVE SESSION STATEMENTS TO BE RELEASED MUST HAVE STATE

CLEARANCE

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Herron, this speech was made in executive session, was it not?

Mr. HERRON. That is my understanding, sir.

Senator THURMOND. It was made to the House Armed Services Committee, was it not?

Mr. HERRON. I believe so, sir.