Senator THURMOND. General White proposed to make certain statements which were revised, and he was not permitted to make them, was he?

Mr. HERRON. In executive session, sir?

Senator THURMOND. In executive session. That is where the meeting was held.

Mr. HERRON. That is not my understanding.

Senator THURMOND. How is that?

Mr. HERRON. I should think that General White could say what he pleased in executive session. That is my understanding, sir. Senator THURMOND. You heard a colonel testify a few minutes ago, didn't you? The colonel just testified.

Mr. HERRON. The way I understood the colonel was that this particular statement was prepared for public release. It was given in executive session, but it was prepared for public release. That is my understanding, sir. I may be wrong.

MECHANICS OF RELEASE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION STATEMENTS

Senator STENNIS. If the Senator would yield there, may I ask whether it was for public release before delivery, or after delivery? Mr. HERRON. Sir, I do not know. Ordinarily the statements are released after the executive session. Certainly the Congress has the courtesy, should be given the courtesy, I would think, to hear testimony before it is made in public release.

Senator STENNIS. As you understood, at least, it was to be released or probably would be by the House Armed Services Committee?

Mr. HERRON. I don't know the mechanics, sir, whether it would be released by the House or the House Armed Services Committee or the Defense Department, or both. I don't know what the mechanics are. Senator STENNIS. I did not mean to take so long, Senator. But you understood then that it would eventually be released?

Mr. HERR'N. Yes, sir. Otherwise it would not have been passed to us.

STATEMENTS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION ONLY DO NOT REQUIRE STATE CLEARANCE

Senator THURMOND. You did not screen speeches made before the committees of the Congress?

Mr. HERRON. Sir?

Senator THURMOND. I say you did not screen speeches made before committees of the Congress? You did not censor those?

Mr. HERRON. Speeches and statements were reviewed by the Department. Yes, a good many.

Senator THURMOND. Suppose an officer testified before a committee of Congress. Would that speech have to be screened by your Department?

Mr. HERRON. If it were only for use in executive session?
Senator THURMOND. Yes.

Mr. HERRON. No, sir. My understanding is it would not.

CHANGES IN STATEMENTS BEFORE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS

Senator THURMOND. Here is one by Lieutenant General Trudeau on the 8th of February, 1961, that seems to have quite a bit censored out of it. And here is another by Admiral Felt. By the way, General Trudeau's was before the House Science and Astronautics Committee.

Here is one by Admiral Felt, Commander in Chief of the Pacific, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Both of these speeches were censored terrifically. So how is it that you make the statement you do? Do you have any consistent policy, or do you not?

Mr. HERRON. My understanding, Senator, is that the Department of Defense, not us, determines what material should be passed to the Department of State for review, so that it may be made public, not so that it may be presented to a committee of Congress. That is my very clear understanding.

And if there is a misunderstanding in substance, I should think at a rather high level that this matter ought to be resolved immediately, because we have no understanding of that type.

STATEMENT CHANGES AND M'NAMARA POSITION OF NO RESTRICTIONS

Senator THURMOND. I understood the Secretary of Defense to say here some time ago that an officer would be free to talk to a congressional committee, but past actions don't seem to indicate that, so it might be well if you would do some checking on that.

Mr. HERRON. It is my clear understanding that the Secretary of Defense has taken the position that anything that should be presented to the Congress should be presented without any restrictions whatso

ever.

Senator THURMOND. At any rate, the statements which General White proposed to tell the House were not made, were they? Mr. HERRON. Apparently there were some changes.

Senator THURMOND. How is that?

Mr. HERRON. There were some changes.

Senator THURMOND. Yes. There certainly were. I agree with you. That is all. Thank you.

HERRON STATEMENT

Senator STENNIS. All right, thank you, Senator.

Mr. Herron, the hour is late. Would you mind putting your statement into the record instead of reading it. Put it into the record. (The statement in full of Francis W. Herron is as follows:)

I am Francis W. Herron, Deputy Director of the Policy Plans and Guidance Staff, Bureau of Public Affairs.

I should like briefly to comment on current procedures and practices relating to the review of speeches and documents received from the Department of Defense. A number of changes have taken place since the subcommittee first demonstrated its interest in this matter. We believe the changes made have been constructive and a knowledge of them may be helpful to the subcommittee. 1. Since November 14, 1961, Department of State reviewers have been operating under the following instructions:

The Bureau of Public Affairs has been in consultation with OASD (PA) (Public Affairs, Department of Defense) regarding ways in which speech clearance procedures may be simplified.

As a result of these discussions, changes or modifications are to be limited to material which, in the judgment of the reviewing officers, is not in accord with policy or which consists of factual errors and interpretations which may be Injurious to U.S. foreign affairs interests. Recommendations for changes_in speeches will be set forth in memorandums which will be passed on to the Department of Defense.

2. The two Departments now operate under new "Procedures for Speech Review and Clearance." In effect changes required for policy reasons or for security reasons will be identified as such and indicated in writing. Any changes which are not specified as required will be considered as recommended or suggested changes. The basic reason for each change made will be provided for purposes of understanding and future guidance. In practice, very few required changes are made by the Department, and these, of course, are subject to appeal. 8. The Department of State now discourages telephone consultation. As past experience has proved, this medium of consultation has resulted in imprecise interpretations and misunderstandings.

4. The Department of State is taking care that it maintains records, through the memorandums system, so that in the future there can be no confusion as to the action taken by the Department.

5. In accordance with the new procedures, monthly meetings are held by representatives of the Office of Security Review and the Policy Plans and Guidance Staff to consider mutual problems and current developments with regard to the public posture of the United States in the field of foreign affairs.

6. An effort is being made by the Office of Security Review and the Policy Plans and Guidance Staff to discover useful material and background for those who speak on foreign affairs subjects. The speech notes of the Department of State and the commanders' series of the Department of Defense contain such material and useful built-in guidance.

The experience of the past year and a half have taught those responsible for speech review that general approaches and procedures within the two Departments are different and must be taken into account. The new procedures attempt to meet the special idiosyncracies of the two Departments.

Because of the overlapping of military and foreign affairs considerations, the Department of State now frequently inquires as to what the position of the Department of Defense is on a given subject matter. Sometimes, in the absence of such an opinion, the Department of State presents its view by memorandum with the suggestion that if there are any differences in the interpretation of policy, discussion take place at the substantive level.

HERRON REFUTES EXISTENCE OF SOFT-LINE POLICY

Senator STENNIS. It appears to the Chair that so far as the testimony of Colonel Rasmessen and Mr. Herron is concerned, that the great chances are that the colonel will not be called back to the stand. Mr. Herron, do you want to say something?

Mr. HERRON. I would like to say one thing, sir. I would like to address myself not to the speech but to a particular point, and that is that the hard line and so-called soft, whatever that means, play everything soft, is not the position of the U.S. Government.

At that time we were very much aware of the statement that the President of the United Sates had made in an early press conference, in which he referred to the example set by Theodore Roosevelt and expressed, as I recall the view, that he hoped the present administration would follow the advice laid down by Theodore Roosevelt that we speak softly but it is possible, sir, but I cannot recall, it is possible that something along that order might have been said in the conversation. I throw this out, sir, because that is my understanding of the U.S. view at that particular time in 1961.

Senator STENNIS. All right.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman.
Senator STENNIS. Senator Thurmond.

SPEECH REVIEW A CONTINUAL ACTIVITY SINCE TRUMAN DIRECTIVE

Senator THURMOND. Of course you are familiar that this screening was going on here before President Kennedy became President. Mr. HERRON. You mean review of speeches?

Senator THURMOND. Review of speeches.

Mr. HERRON. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. And censoring speeches and censoring statements about communism took place before President Kennedy became President. You are familiar with that, aren't you?

Mr. HERRON. I am familiar, sir, that the review of speeches has been a continual activity of the Department of State since President Tru

man.

Senator THURMOND. If you are not, I can refresh your memory. Mr. HERRON. Since President Truman issued the first directive.

COMMUNIST GOAL AND DISREGARD OF TREATY COMMITMENTS

Senator THURMOND. I want to ask you this question. Do you think that the United States can deal with a country like Russia, which has as its goal, its announced goal, of world domination, as it can with other countries?

Mr. HERRON. One thing, sir, that the President has reminded us is that we should seek if possible to negotiate, to explore the possibilities of negotiation, and to advance the cause of freedom and to avoid a thermonuclear war which would be of no advantage to anyone.

Senator THURMOND. Haven't they broken about 52 major agreements they have entered into, and how can you rely on any agreement they enter into?

Mr. HERRON. There are a couple of agreements that are in existence, agreements made with the Soviet Union, since the end of World War II.

Senator THURMOND. How many did

Mr. HERRON. I know of two, sir.
Senator THURMOND. That what?

Mr. HERRON. Two agreements.

you say?

Senator THURMOND. That they have kept?

Mr. HERRON. It is my opinion they have, as far as I know.
Senator THURMOND. Do you know of the 50 that they haven't kept?
Mr. HERRON. Sir?

Senator THURMOND. Do you know of the 50 that they haven't kept? Mr. HERRON. I couldn't recite 50, sir. I don't have a record. If there are 50, I don't have such a record, no.

Senator THURMOND. That is all.

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING SCHEDULE

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator.

Colonel, with the thanks of the subcommittee you will be excused. Mr. Herron, do you have another point you want to make? I don't want to shut you off.

Mr. HERRON. No, sir; on this matter, no.

Senator STENNIS. We have put your statement in the record. You are on duty here in Washington, is that correct?

Mr. HERRON. That is correct, sir.

Senator STENNIS. All right, if we need you, we will ask you to come back, but for the time being I don't see anything to call you back for particularly, but you are very close to this thing. I want you to understand that we will feel free to call you back.

Members of the subcommittee, we cannot just stop the hearings and wait for the reports that are to be made by the State Department giving the reasons for the changes and deletions with reference to the speeches. We will have to reach back and pick up matters like that, so I think the practical thing to do is to get that as soon as we can, and then take it up at some appropriate time. So this brings us substantially to the next phase of these hearings, as the Chair understands it.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, we have some more witnesses on the censoring phase.

Senator STENNIS. Yes. Excuse me, you had not mentioned any more to me.

Senator THURMOND. We will get them to you right away, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. I wish you would get in the names of any other proposed witnesses, and subject to that matter, and without anyone being precluded, of course, from bringing in additional witnesses on the first phase, this substantially brings us to the close of this phase of the hearings, the so-called review or so-called censorship.

The next phase to be taken up will be the troop information and education program. That involves the training or indoctrination program, primarily for the military men themselves. Of course, there will be overlaps.

That involves the manuals, the films, and the code of conduct. That includes, as we have already said, General Walker, who will be called in connection with that phase of the case. But I don't think we can set any date yet on that. We will try to pick up the witnesses you mentioned, Senator, just as soon as we can. But certainly we will not be able to start on the troop information and education program until next week.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, there is one point. The State Department said they would furnish, Mr. Ball said he would furnish, some witness who would be subject to cross-examination about this. Senator STENNIS. Oh, yes, that is reserved because that goes with the statements.

Senator THURMOND. If I could suggest that they have original notations or statements made at the time the speeches were censored, that they bring those along so that the committee can see them in person.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Kendall, if you will make it clear to the State Department that we want to give them reasonable time, but we do need these explanations brought in for study by the staff, information to the Senators and selection of witnesses for examination. I hope that this substantially covers that first phase, except what we have pointed out. But if it does not, that is entirely all right.