On the other hand, many of the European nations get people who are highly skilled. Great Britain is a marvelous example-a nation that was running a third of the world is still turning out leadership manpower with little to run at this point.

The Western European nations, with their tremendous knowledge of languages, can contribute a great deal to exactly the same objective that we have.

I think one of the effects of this year's action by Congress on the aid bill may be that we will get into more multilateral-not necessarily United Nations-but multilateral handling of aid which will, in the end, cost us less money because it will be done more efficiently.

Mr. ENGBERG. I wonder if the Secretary will want to comment on this very area. The President's instruction to the Ambassador is that he is to coordinate, supervise, and handle the embassy. We have innumerable areas which say "we have a right to manage our own business." I think the President's instruction is highly desirable, but almost impossible to carry out.

You referred to this a moment ago.

Senator Pell has just commented on it again.

What is your thinking in regard to this shall we call it an absence of horizontal coordination at the top at home, with the expectation that the Ambassador is going to have to coordinate the whole thing in the field.

You may not want to comment on that, but if you do, I am sure it will be very instructive.

Mr. CROCKETT. I am sure the Secretary, himself, will want to comment on this.

I want to say that we have not come up with any definitive conclusion. I have long felt, personally felt and personally advocated, that in the field of foreign affairs, in the coordination of foreign affairs, we must somewhere develop, on the domestic side, a locale of authority and responsibility that is similar to the authority and responsibility we have given to the Ambassador. We have given authority to the Ambassador and it is working so far as it goes, but it flows from a focal point there to dozens of points back here.

Somehow we need a coordinating point here relating to the Ambassador in the field.

There has been some thought on this, and we have done some things along this line. For instance, on Brazil we have made a single desk officer responsible for both AID and State so that this has pulled two elements together at least.

In effect, we are encouraging all desk officers to be leaders of a country team relating to their country. The desk officers would have weekly or biweekly meetings with interested officers around the government who have an interest in their country programs.

For instance, in India, we have made an inventory and there are about 70 people in the U.S. Government representing various agencies who are interested in India. So, our desk officer in charge of India has a real job of coordination, of getting people together to talk about U.S. programs in India. We are encouraging this coordination.

We don't have any real directive out; we don't have any real statement of policy or philosophy.

Another thing I think is useful is the Latin American Policy Council, where our Assistant Secretary for Latin American Affairs is chairman of an interagency planning and policy group. This council consists of representatives of the major agencies doing business in Latin America. The Assistant Secretary sits as chairman and this group discusses programs, problems, policies, operating situations across the board in Latin America. So that the Assistant Secretary, in essence, is the Federal coordinator for this area.

We are thinking about the same thing for other areas.

I don't say we need the same organization for every area but Governor Williams is thinking about and has moved toward this same concept for Africa.

Another thing that I personally think would be useful would be to endow an Assistant Secretary with some of the responsibility and prerogatives that an Ambassador has in his country of assignment. An Assistant Secretary might be given the same kind of charge of authority by the President that the Ambassador has been given and told officially and formally and the whole Government advised that Mr. X, the Assistant Secretary, is going to be the coordinator of all the Government activities for this area and for these countries.

Mr. ENGBERG. Sort of another deputy chief of mission?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, some concept like this. It has problems with other agencies and I am not sure it can be done, but this is one idea that has emerged.

Mr. ENGBERG. Do you gentlemen feel that to set this thing up effectively will require further legislation?

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't really believe so.

Mr. ENGBERG. To bring these top elements together?

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't think so. I think it could be accomplished by Executive order.

One of the problems, though, that our lawyers tell us about is that, strangely enough, not all authority even flows to the President. Many of the authorities flow to the heads of agencies, and therefore it might require legislation to make it totally effective. But I think that a great deal can be done and a great deal is being done through gradual evolution. These things take time because people's concepts have to be turned around. This just won't happen overnight. It has to be developed.

Mr. ENGBERG. I had a man tell me, from one of the agencies, and this is not Agriculture, "I am not responsible to State. I am responsible to the agency that Congress has authorized."

Mr. CROCKETT. This is true, this is what many of them feel, and agencies themselves feel this way.

As I mentioned earlier, at one time it was my responsibility to work with agencies in terms of their programs abroad and try to insure that the Ambassador wanted the program and supported the number of people required for it. Often the agency involved blithely but firmly told us it was not the State Department's business, and that they would do as they saw fit and could get support from Congress.

This is part of the bureaucratic attitude.

Mr. ENGBERG. We might need to do some educating in Congress, Senator Pell.

Senator PELL. It seems to me that the power to do this under the Constitution would flow from the President but whether legislation will be asked for or not will depend upon whether the Executive presently in power has a strong presidential concept of the Constitution or a less strong concept.

Mr. CROCKETT. Again I want to say that the Secretary asked me to leave the whole legislative side to him. I only want to say again that, although it is not a concept of legislation or law, realistically the problem is that even committees of Congress have deep interests in the activities that they represent. They become advocates, in a sense, of their programs and the programs of their agencies, and when they sincerely believe in them and believe in their usefulness and validity, they are often swayed by the representations of their program much more than they are swayed by a recommendation of an Ambassador.

Mr. ENGBERG. That is one thing we cannot forget. We can sit here and think of the welfare of the Nation as a whole and see the great value that we would have if we knew exactly where we were going and it is so easy at times to forget the pressures that are brought to bear upon the Congressmen.

That is all I have, Senator Pell.

Thank you, Mr. Crockett.

Sentor PELL. Thank you very much indeed. You have been singularly forthright and it is a great honor for me to be here today to have heard you.

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT I

REMARKS OF WILLIAM J. CROCKETT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ADMINISTRATION, AT THE CONVENING OF THE 1963 SELECTION BOARDS, Depart MENT OF STATE, SEPTEMBER 11, 1963

It is my privilege to welcome you on behalf of Secretary Rusk at this ceremony convening the 1963 selection boards.

Much of what I have to say today will not be new to you. But the selection system of which you are a part is one of the great ordinances of the Foreign Service and therefore I think it is important and fitting that we seriously consider some of the factors that will be a part of your deliberations.

You have been asked to sit in judgment on our most valuable resource-our people. You have been asked to identify for promotion and selection out the men and women who bear the onerous responsibility of the Foreign Service of the United States of America.

The Department of State and the Foreign Service are at the center of problems involving the very future and security of our country. Our foreign affairs activities require men and women of excellence; with leadership, executive, and intellectual capacity of the highest order; with vision and courage; with strength and vigor; with determination and dedication.

Just a few weeks ago, President Kennedy said, "Those who participate in all of the many programs which make up the Foreign Service of the United States in a large sense may feel that, though this is peacetime, their contributions to the United States and its security are second to none."

Secretary Rusk often speaks of the complexity and pace of today's world and the increasing demands that are made upon the public service, and I would say the Foreign Service. The challenges to the people who occupy public posts were never more exacting. And, to quote the Secretary, "There is more room at the top when the demands for top performance are so exacting."

The President has characterized the 1960's as being the "golden period of the Foreign Service," an era fraught with exciting problems and challenges and therefore opportunities-that never existed before for those serving the Nation in foreign affairs activities. He recognizes, and has said, that the Foreign Service is not an easy career, it is not an easy life.

The basic purpose of the selection system, as stated in precepts which all of you have received "is to identify and reward excellence, ability, and potential by advancing outstanding officers to the senior ranks, regardless of age or length of service or time in grade."

The precepts state-and I emphasize "every other consideration is distinctly secondary."

For the first time, these Selection Boards have been asked to evaluate both Foreign Service officers and Foreign Service Reserve officers. All are to be considered as officers of equal status. This is in general recognition of the fact that in this modern-day Foreign Service we must include men and women who know and have a real understanding of the nontraditional tools of diplomatic action. These Reserve officers bring to the Foreign Service skills and specialties in short supply or totally lacking in the career corps.

There may be some difficulty in equating the performance records of Reserve officers because of the lack of performance information, particularly relating to prior employment, but the Office of Personnel stands ready to assist in obtaining additional information when requested by the boards.

In regard to specialization, the argument in State, as in industry, has waxed long and loud as to the relative importance of specialists versus generalists.

52-721 0-65-26