course depends on the quality and judgment of the key people in the State Department and in the field. It must, however, be said that in foreign affairs problems are often tremendously complicated and intractable and there are often no ready solutions.

The integration of State Department and the Foreign Service officers was a desirable and necessary reform. It is now the case that State Department officers dealing with foreign affairs must have field experience; and integration has opened up many more opportunities within the State Department for Foreign Service officers on home assignment. At the same time I feel that this reform-accomplished under the Wriston Report-was too extensive and too rapid. A more gradual and selective approach would have produced less anguish and dislocation and made for a smoother transition.

Some of the worst mistakes of this integration have been corrected, although further adjustments are needed. I believe one of these is to restore the former practice of classifying subordinate administrative or "housekeeping" positions as Foreign Service Staff officers. There is no point in pretending that a budget or accounting clerk or similar "housekeeping" officer is interchangeable with a Foreign Service officer, who is a professional engaged in substantive work, or that the two can be treated in the same promotion system. The occasional administrative officer with great general ability should, of course, be afforded the opportunity for transfer to the Foreign Service officer category. Likewise a Foreign Service officer at the lower grades should have a short apprenticeship in the administrative section of an embassy to acquaint him with the work in this area.

The members of the subcommittee will note in this memorandum how frequently I have used the words "senior officers," "section chiefs," and "quality," "experience," and "versatility" especially "at the top." This is the great need. Every embassy needs three or four such officers. It is they who inject their staff with enthusiasm, make even the most humdrum work seem important and exciting, and bring out the best in their subordinates. It is they who in the final analysis are in a position to train and develop the talent needed at the top. Although the ambassador gives tone and direction to a mission, it is the senior officers who are his eyes and ears, and sometimes his mouth. The needs of the Foreign Service around the world are for 300 to 400 officers of the highest quality and the Department needs about the same number. There are many now in place and I see no reason why the balance cannot be developed within the next few years.

The Foreign Service is no "striped pants" profession. One rarely wears them these days. It is an exacting, arduous profession requir ing hard work, skills, devotion, sacrifice, discipline, strong nerves, and judgment. It is worthy of the best brains and talent that the United States can provide.

That our Foreign Service has been able to weather the whirlwind changes of the last 18 years, has adjusted to the new and heavy responsibilities thrust upon it since 1945, and has emerged in as good form as it has from the repeated reorganizations and assaults is a tribute in large measure to that stalwart group of first rate "old-line" Foreign Service officers, most of whom have now retired. It is they who have nurtured, encouraged, protected and educated the present generation of Foreign Service officers during these turbulent years.

There are now moving into many senior positions the new generation bred during the time when the United States assumed great international responsibilities. In this new generation there are many men of first rate ability and I look forward with confidence to rising standards of staff and performance in our Foreign Service, providing we have seen the last of the major reorganizations and drastic changes. What the career Foreign Service needs now is to be allowed to settle down, perfect its operations, do its job, and develop an "esprit de corps" that is so essential to any good organization.

ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

STAFFING AND OPERATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

[This hearing was held in executive session and subsequently ordered made public by the chairman of the committee.]

The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 3112, New Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Jackson, Pell, and Brewster.

Staff members present: Dorothy Fosdick, staff director; Richard S. Page, research assistant; Judith J. Spahr, chief clerk; and Laurel A. Engberg, minority consultant.

Also present: Benjamin Weiner, special assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration; Roy Little, special assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of State; Richard A. Mintz, assistant, Office of Public Affairs, Bureau of Administration; and Godfrey Harris, project officer, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN

Senator JACKSON. The committee will come to order.

Today, our subcommittee will take testimony on the role of the State Department in the conduct of our relations with other countries, with particular reference to problems of State Department management and personnel.

This subject is part of the subcommittee's broad nonpartisan inquiry into problems of national security staffing and operations in Washington and abroad.

In a statement in November 1961, at the conclusion of our earlier study, I said: "No task is more urgent than improving the effectiveness of the Department of State." The initial staff report in this present study, issued in January 1963 and entitled "Administration of National Security: Basic Issues," indicates the questions in which we are particularly interested.

The subcommittee has sought the counsel of many past and present Government officials concerned with the State Department and the national policy process. In March of this year, we took testimony on the role of the Department from Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman, and from two longtime students of the State Depart

ment-Dr. Richard Neustadt and Dr. Robert Tufts. We have had the benefit of testimony from a number of distinguished retired and active ambassadors who have combined work abroad with service in key State Department posts.

We welcome, as our witness today, the Honorable William J. Crockett, Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration.

Mr. Crockett received his bachelor of science degree in business administration from the University of Nebraska. He served in the Army in World War II and the Korean war.

His oversea assignments have included tours of duty with the old U.S. Maritime Commission in Naples (1946-47), and with the Technical Cooperation Administration in Beirut (1951-52). He joined the Department of State as Administrative Officer in Karachi, serving in this post from November 1952 to March 1954. Subsequently, he held a similar post in Rome.

Beginning in August 1958, Mr. Crockett served the Department as Deputy Budget and Finance Officer, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and Finance in the Bureau of Administration, and then as Assistant Secretary for Administration. In June of this year he assumed his present position as the State Department's top administrative officer.

Mr. Secretary, we appreciate very much your joining us today. I understand you have a statement for the committee, and without objection, we shall include it at this point in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. CROCKETT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. CROCKETT. It is a privilege to appear before this committee which has rendered such distinguished service in the area of national security. Your findings will be most beneficial to the country at large and certainly to the Department of State. I wish to express our indebtedness to you.

I value also the chance to comment on the ideas and criticisms that have already been expressed before this committee, to identify a number of problems with which we are dealing and, finally, to explain certain measures we have taken and are contemplating taking in the Department of State to meet our obligations toward the national security of our Nation.

You have invited me to testify on the Department's role in the administration of national security at home and in the field. I need not remind you of the complexities and far-ranging responsibilities of this role.

We are deeply conscious of them. And we are aware that to discharge them we must never cease striving to perfect our organization. In foreign affairs, as in any other field of management, good organization, however, is no guarantee of good results. Two even more basic requirements are sound policies and capable personnel. Nor can any organizational prescription substitute for the vital qualities of teamwork, good personal relations, and mutual understanding between individuals working toward the same ends.

But good organization, with a clear definition of duties and a clear fixing of responsibilities, can contribute to and pave the way for these