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

It is true that we are looking for outstanding generalists, but in our zeal to find them we must not overlook the advancement of those specialists whose very depth of understanding makes them invaluable in the work they do for us. Officers who have accepted assignments in specialized areas have frequently been heard to complain of discrimination in promotions.

The Wriston Committee as well as the more recent Herter Committee on Personnel recognized that the Department must employ specialists in order to fulfill its vital role. The Department has also recognized the importance of specialization.

Selection out in previous years has often come about because an officer was judged not to have the potential required to reach the highest levels of the Service. This philosophy was followed despite the fact that many public members expressed the opinion that we were losing officers who had specialties that we could ill afford to lose simply because the officer in question did not have the capacity of becoming a generalist or an executive and thereby did not have the potential to reach the top. In this year's precepts, we have moved a long way from this concept. Wherever possible, you should consider an officer's ability, first in comparison with that of officers in his own specialty before a comparison is made with his class as a whole. In these cases general potential is not as important as his potential in his specialty.

In your considerations, you should know that the Department places critical importance on the assignment of officers to other agencies-our sister agencies, USIA and AID, as well as to Treasury, Commerce, Labor, Defense, the Peace Corps, and others.

Also, it is well to point out that officers assigned to the U.S. mission at the United Nations have an unparalleled opportunity to broaden their knowledge of world affairs, to develop contacts useful to their work, and to learn parliamentary procedures at the highest international level.

NATO and our numerous political advisers to military commands present another case in point. Officers assigned there serve under men who may not be completely familiar with the importance the promotion system attaches to efficiency ratings, and the reports on these officers may not reflect in detail the information we are accustomed to look for in the evaluation of an officer.

Therefore, I ask you to keep in mind that rating officers in international organizations and other agencies are apt to pay less heed to our rating system than we would like.

You will find many officers assigned to advanced training programs at the various war colleges and universities around the country, and you will find others in what we call hard language training. Many of these men have volunteered for this training. I urge you to give positive credit to these men who are placing the long-term needs and interests of the Department and Foreign Service ahead of personal considerations. Being out of the mainstream of usual Department assignments means that they, too, may have skimpy ratings. I assure you they would not be in training if they were not representative of the best officers we have.

I have been discussing some of the promotion factors. Now I would like to mention the concept of selecting officers to leave the Service because they do not measure up for one reason or another to the high standards that are required for membership in the Foreign Service Officer Corps. In many ways, the task of selecting those who do not measure up will be a more difficult assignment than identifying those who should be promoted.

Selection out-the elimination of the less fit-is necessary for improving the corps, and for assuring that we do have a service that is equipped and ready to face the problems ahead. Judged in terms of men and women who somehow do not measure up, it might be called a harsh and brutal system. But the perilous times confronting our Nation today do not permit mediocrity in our ranks.

You may find cases where officers promoted very recently now appear to have leveled off or even merit your consideration for selection out. There are several things I would like to have you keep in mind in this regard. First of all, the promotion system itself has weaknesses because it is a system based on human judgment, and human judgment is often subjective and at times erroneous. Therefore, there is always a possibility of mistake. But most important of all, you should remember that people change characters change, attitudes fluctuate, and motivations shift. Officers once vigorous and ambitious can go sour and somehow lose their vision. As a result, we can never say that any promotion is ever final-it cannot be made and forgotten. Our evaluation system is an