add around 50,000 to 60,000 a year. We also take out, by virtue of deaths and disappearances, a considerable number, although less than we add, because the file is growing. However, when you consider the population of the world and the number of people who have to be known before they are prominent and put in your file to have the file useful, that is still far below what would be of maximum use to the Department.

We attempt to identify a foreigner when he comes into his first. position of prominence, not by the time he has become a cabinet. member or a chief of state, but so that we will be able to have a knowledge of him as he advances through the grades and up through the years.

Mr. ROONEY. Why would not that better be handled at the particular embassy, legation, or mission?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Primarily because the information on foreigners comes from all around the world. The embassy would be the source in the country in which he lives, but frequently facts concerning him turn up in a different country, on a different continent, and these flow into Washington, into the central office, and can be assimilated, digested, catalogued, and filed far more efficiently than if we then, in turn, had to send them back to the embassies.

In many embassies we maintain biographic files of people of interest to them in their own work in those countries, but the central file, where you would be able to have immediate access to it, as a basis of efficiency, seems better located in Washington.

Mr. ROONEY. Does your shop hire the services of any clipping agency?

Mr. ARMSTRONG.. No, sir. We do our own clipping.

OVERTIME

Mr. ROONEY. Tell us what you mean by the sentence on page 34: The above increased production has contributed heavily to the substantial increase in the total amount of hours of overtime (paid, compensatory, and voluntary) performed by intelligence employees.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That goes back to the increase in workload which involved a considerable increase without an increase in personnel, and we computed the man-hours and then, to account for the origin of those additional man-hours, this breakdown was made. In other words, the overtime in the second 6 months of 1949 was 15,236; in the first 6 months of 1950 it was 11,560. Then, from July to December 1950, basing it upon only the 2 months we had available at the time this budget was computed, it would have averaged 21,000, or rather would have totaled 21,000.

Mr. ROONEY. Have you computed it in minutes per day per employee?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. Well, what are these figures following the sentence. I just read-July to December 1950, 17,790? You are talking about man-hours; are you?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. You have 275 people?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is correct.

Mr. ROONEY. And for a 6-month period, taking 120 days, it would amount to about half an hour a day apiece?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, on working days, if you take 5 days a week, 4 weeks is 20 days. One hundred and twenty days; yes. That is right-half an hour a day per person.

Mr. ROONEY. One-half hour per day per employee would be about 33,000 man-hours on a yearly basis; would it not?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROONEY. And one-half of that would approximate this figure? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Approximately; yes.

Mr. ROONEY. So it amounts to about half an hour a day.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Per person.

Mr. Chairman, I now have the information you requested on the Biographic Division. The breakdown between professional and clerical is 35 professional and 18 clerical employees.

COLLECTING, EVALUATING, AND DISTRIBUTING RAW INTELLIGENCE

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Armstrong, your job is primarily that of acquiring information; is that it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is the first step, and then

Mr. FLOOD. Do you evaluate it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Do you reach conclusions?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We do, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Then, not only are you reporters but you are editorial writers as well.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We are analysts in the sense of working on the information to arrive at conclusions.

Mr. FLOOD. When you refer to "raw intelligence," I suppose you refer to the material that you have collected from varied and many sources before anybody works on it.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. When you collect this raw intelligence, do you keep it all to yourselves, or do you pass on the raw intelligence to anybody else? If so, to whom?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We pass much of the raw intelligence on as of immediate consequence to the operating officials in the Department. Mr. FLOOD. Who determines who gets it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Our Acquisition and Distribution Division has the job of determining who ought to get it.

Mr. FLOOD. Then the Acquisition and Distribution Division of your office has the power of deciding what is done with raw intelligence coming to you from every conceivable source from which you get it? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir; that responsibility is delegated to them. Mr. FLOOD. To them?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. To that division.

Mr. FLOOD. Who is the chief of that division?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The chief of that division is Mr. Nordbeck.

Mr. FLOOD. Who is he?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Nordbeck is a professional intelligence officer.

Mr. FLOOD. What does that mean?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I suppose "professional" is a misuse of the word, but it is used in the sense of having been in it for a considerable period of time and having done nothing else for some years.

Mr. FLOOD. Then there is such a bird known as a professional intelligence officer; is that right?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I am afraid so, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. You are joined in your fears, I think-upon occasion, at least. However, I can recognize that such an entity does exist. Before any raw intelligence is passed on by that section, does it first meet with your approval?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Not in the normal course of events; no, sir. If there is a question as to whether a piece of information should go to any particular part of the Department, or outside the Department, it may come up to me.

Mr. FLOOD. Are you a professional intelligence officer?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I am afraid so, sir. I would say I have been in the intelligence business full time only since 1942-nine years.

DEFINITION OF RAW INTELLIGENCE

Mr. FLOOD. I am not clear as to just what in the world "intelligence" is. It seems to be used rather loosely and can be a cloak for a great many things, and I am not at all satisfied that the average citizen or the average Congressman, even, has a clear concept of what you professionals mean by "intelligence.' Now, without giving me a lecture, can you possibly let me know what you mean by "intelligence," or would you rather prepare for the record at this point a reasonable statement of what is meant by "intelligence" to the professional intelligence bureaucrat?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, sir, it is extremely difficult to put it into simple terms, because of the misuse, as you say, of the word all too frequently. It is sometimes used to describe a process; it is sometimes used to describe a product and sometimes something else. In fact, we try to qualify the word whenever we use it within the profession, so to speak, by defining it a little further as intelligence collection or intelligence production or raw intelligence or evaluated intelligence, which would apply to the substance of it rather than to the process. The main business of intelligence, again to misuse the word, is a combination of all those of the process of gathering, the process of distributing, the process of analysis. Those are all a part of intelligence.

INTERNAL SECURITY

Mr. FLOOD. How do you recruit the personnel for your section in the Department?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We recruit in two ways. For people who have specialized skills in respect to substantive matters-that is, who either have detailed and deep knowledge of countries and areas, particularly with regard to their political history, their political environment today, their culture, and their psychology-or people who have functional training, say, who are experts in the steel industry or transportation or petroleum, who work in that particular thing alone without regard to the area that is one kind of personnel we recruit. Another kind is one who has a certain skill in dealing with people, in getting the

maximum amount out of them in terms of liaison and getting material for us and, conversely, making the other people we have to deal with the happiest we can.

Mr. FLOOD. Is there much of a turn-over in the field of service of your so-called best professional or high professional intelligence men? Mr. ARMSTRONG. There is a greater turn-over than I like; yes, sir. There are many of those people who will not be happy under the chafes and restraints of serving in a bureaucracy. They demand to speak, teach, and write freely without regard to the restraints we have to put upon them.

Mr. FLOOD. Then they are not professional intelligence officers. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Some of them are, and the turn-over among them is less. But many that we need have to come from either the academic world or other places where those peculiar skills are developed in graduate study or study in the field.

Mr. FLOOD. Do you have any special or particular personal interest or do you have an inquiring mind so far as you personally are concerned as to the security of personalities within your very special section?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Indeed I do.

Mr. FLOOD. What do you do about it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The responsibility in the Department, as I am sure you know, is centralized in the administrative area.

Mr. FLOOD. I know that very well. I am asking about you.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I have a personal responsibility for the people in my area that extends beyond that.

Mr. FLOOD. I know about your administrative responsibility. I am inquiring and delving into you personally. What interest do you have as chief of the section in the quirks, idiosyncracies, background, and security of your personnel?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Insofar as time permits me to know them personally, I do, and I try to interview every one of the higher-level people whom we employ at the beginning and try to know how their work fits in with the standards we feel we must maintain.

Mr. FLOOD. Do you have any doubts in your mind now as to the dependability, loyalty, or security of anybody in your section? Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. From top to bottom?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Nobody?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Period?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. You are pretty sure about that; are you not?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. FLOOD. Of course, I hope you are right.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, sir.

RELATIONSHIP WITH NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

Mr. FLOOD. What is your relationship now with the National Security Council? Where does your job fit into that picture? Why are you important to them?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. My job fits in in two ways; one, in the manner in which I support the Secretary when questions bearing on intel

ligence come up in the Council. He must be advised as to the background of it and the recommendations he will be confronted with and any help I can give him in resolving any problems. Secondly, we fit into it as being a member of the group which is coordinated by the Central Intelligence Agency which, in turn, reports to the National Security Council; I am the member for the Department of the Intelligence Advisory Committee that advises the Director of Central Intelligence on intelligence matters for the Government as a whole.

Mr. FLOOD. What is this Central Intelligence Agency? Is that just a sphinxlike instrument that has grown up in this alphabetical soup of modern government?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir. It was created by statute in the National Security Act of 1947.

Mr. FLOOD. I know that. Is it functioning?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir; very much.

Mr. FLOOD. Do we need it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes; we do, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Can you get along without it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think it has made itself quite indispensable. Mr. FLOOD. You say so as a professional?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. You think it is a good idea?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. You think this type of coordination of intelligence is effective?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do, indeed.

Mr. FLOOD. You do not think we can get along without it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think we would be far worse off without it. Mr. FLOOD. It is not cumbersome?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. It is still young. There is room for improvement, and improvement is going on, and the present Director of Central Intelligence is very aggressively setting about making it as effective as he possibly can.

Mr. FLOOD. It does not defeat its own purpose?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do not believe so.

Mr. FLOOD. It is not a labyrinth of some sort?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do not believe so.

Mr. FLOOD. You are stating, as a professional intelligence man, it will work?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I am.

Mr. FLOOD. You would rather be working this way than working the way you were before it was born?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Indeed; yes, sir.

VALUE OF INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Mr. FLOOD. There is an opinion floating around the world and around the United States-a curbstone opinion, at least-that the intelligence service of the State Department and of the United States Government generally in all branches, of all types, levels, kinds, and qualities, from the beginning of this Nation down to this afternoon, is incompetent, inefficient, operated and manned by a lot of naive, rank amateurs, and is not worth the powder and shot to shoot it,

81707-51-6