Mr. ROONEY. I do not think you can succeed in making black white or white black.

Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Chairman, as you well know we have some expert budget people working for us. I do not know the explanation but we will have a simple explanation for you to reconcile the two figures for you. Frankly, I cannot because I do not know everything in here, but I am sure Frank's people can reconcile the figures.

Mr. ROONEY. These are the most expensive costs for eight manyears I have ever come across in my years here.

Mr. CROCKETT. If it were only that factor I would agree with you but I am positive there are many, many other costs in here that I cannot talk about at the moment.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Marshall?

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am so confused I do not know where to start.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Bow?

Mr. Bow. I join with Mr. Marshall, I am a little confused too.

OVERALL INCREASE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1963

Mr. ROONEY. The only thing I am not confused about is this startling increase of $55 million.

Mr. Bow. I am not confused so much about that increase as being startled as to what it is.

To go back to some of the items you referred to in your opening statement, as I understand, moneys were used as shown by the one chart the Chairman has referred to for purposes other than for what the items were presented to the committee last year?

Mr. JONES. I must confirm that, Mr. Bow.

Mr. Bow. You also said in your opening statement that under a new policy, as soon as the budget is agreed upon, Mr. Crockett will then distribute to the various offices and divisions the amount they are to operate on for the year?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. That is a new policy statement you made this morning? Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bow. That there is no pool to come to distribute after the budget is made up; is that right?

Mr. JONES. I made that statement.

FINANCING OF EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Mr. Bow. That is what I want to understand. What happens, then, in these emergencies that arise constantly in the State Department if you have made a distribution and the funds are used and then you have an emergency? What happens?

Mr. JONES. At the moment, Mr. Bow, I do not know. This is one of the great gaps in my knowledge. I know what has happened in the past. The emergencies have been met by taking it out of the travel account or communications, which is one of the things we could take it out of this year partly because we could not get the equipment. I do not know what will happen in the future. I have made it very clear to the topside of the Department and have the support of my superiors, the Secretary and the two Under Secretaries, that this

business of meeting crises by taking money away from centrally controlled support costs is something which we must stop if we cannot bring it to a grinding halt, at least we must have precise dimensions of needs to report to the Congress. We have not had precise dimensions on it and have not been able to report to the Congress as we have run into these things. I do not think that is the way to run a budget.

Mr. Bow. I agree with you. And we must realize that of all the departments of Government that do have emergencies, the State Department is probably faced with more emergencies that were unforeseen at the time of the budget presentation than any other.

Mr. JONES. Yes, but I do not think that is an excuse for not being able to cost them.

Mr. Bow. I agree. But if this emergency happens, what will happen? Will we be able to meet the emergencies?

Mr. JONES. Yes, we will be able to meet the emergencies. There are two things that are apt to happen. The first is we will try to pick up funds from areas that are going better than we expected them to do within the allotments made to the individual bureaus and get them to absorb their own individual costs. Another thing that is apt to happen, in the absence of authorization by Congress of a contingency fund for the Secretary, is that we will continue to divert funds, probably from the travel account. But the difference is that we expect to cost them item by item so they can be presented across the table to this committee and, if necessary, to our substantive committees so that we can put a price tag on the emergencies.

Mr. Bow. In other words, so that we will know what the emergencies are costing us?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. Bow. Good.

SPECIAL STUDIES

I was intrigued with the idea that while there have been criticisms of the former administration it is amazing that to correct those deficiencies we have a committee headed by the former Secretary of State, Mr. Herter.

Mr. JONES. The job of the committee which Secretary Herter chairs is to examine the entire base of our needs for the Foreign Service and the agencies working with it in the hope we can lay out a very much better set of doctrines about the type of people we need, what type of training we should give them, where they should be assigned, what sort of retirement policies we should have, in all of which Í suspect but cannot yet prove that there has been a fairly substantial degree of leakage, of manpower and money. There are a number of people on the rolls who are really marginal. Perhaps not giving them the training they should have and the assignments they get after they are trained is another thing. This is an attempt to get somebody from the outside to take a hard look at things the Government cannot control.

Mr. Bow. I wonder how many studies we have had since I have been on the committee. We had the Heller study, the Wriston study, we have had study after study.

Mr. ROONEY. And they have never saved a nickel.

Mr. Bow. They have never saved a nickel. I wish sometime somebody would go in and do this job and get it over with. Perhaps have a committee to study the committees and really confuse the issues.

Mr. JONES. What I am trying to say is that within the limits of the administrative direction I have had I have tried, with the aid of Mr. Crockett and his staff, to find the points where leakage occurs.

COSTS OF R.I.F'S

Mr. Bow. If Mr. Herter's committee comes up with recommendations for r.i.f.'s we will have to increase the budget because the last r.i.f. referred to by the chairman cost a lost of money.

Mr. JONES. This is a very astounding thing and it can be explained by three simple factors.

Mr. Bow. Do we not have some people who were r.i.f.'s and who went on the rolls at a higher salary?

Mr. JONES. For a very short time that was true in transfers to some small number of jobs.

Mr. Bow. And then they come up with a higher rate?

Mr. JONES. This is the kind of thing I can speak of with great authority, conviction, and a great deal of emotionalism because I spent 2 years on the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Bow. I know that and I wonder why when we have r.i.f.'s it costs money?

Mr. JONES. The first thing is, it depends on the time of year it must take place. In this case the first quarter of the year was almost over. Then there are procedures under the Veterans' Preference Act and other rights, and some of the procedures are so frightfully complex and complicated in order to protect the so-called rights that you find yourself in the position if you want to get rid of 264 jobs, as we did, that we actually ran into a situation that involved close to 1,000 positions, because of bumping changes, veterans' preference rights and so forth. All of this took time and led us to the half year point.

Mr. Bow. Are you suggesting that perhaps what we need is some legislation so that some of this responsibility comes back to us, that is to the Congress?

Mr. JONES. Yes; and I have asked my successor on the Commission, Mr. Macy, to take our r.i.f. apart and see what is wrong in view of the fact it costs so much money.

Another thing is there has been so much relative stability in the State Department that almost anybody had accumulated leave. We had 90 days' leave to pay after the terminating date before we could get them off the rolls. The earliest we could get them off was January 1 and after that they had 90 days' annual leave, which carries you beyond 3 months, and we had obligations to these people that actually exceeded the saving in the appropriation.

This is the kind of thing that should not be. Of course it costs money only in the short-term sense because it then stabilizes.

Mr. Bow. But this has not happened. We have these people in other places, do we not?

Mr. JONES. Yes. In many cases they transferred to other departments and agencies and in other cases our own attrition was such that before they actually went off the rolls-this is particularly true of stenographers-we had vacancies and were able to assign them. I think only 70-odd people have physically left the Department, but to that figure there must be added the retirements.

Mr. Bow. I would like to ask a question off the record, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. ROONEY. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Bow. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Cederberg.

COSTS OF UNDER SECRETARY'S CONFERENCES

Mr. CEDERBERG. I am with Mr. Marshall, I also am somewhat confused, but I am also wondering about the former Under Secretary's conferences, $300,000, and that is only the downpayment.

Mr. JONES. There is $260,000, roughly, of additional cost for conferences which has not yet been met. There have been large meetings, Mr. Cederberg, in Lagos, Nicosia, New Delhi, and South and Central America, and coming up in Baguio, involving the assembly of all the regional people who needed to go from Washington from the regional bureaus and there have not been too many-the ambassadors in the region, their wives, and the conference cost of supplying stenographers, getting the necessary accommodations, paying per diems, and so forth, plus the travel costs, and the travel costs, at least in part, have been handled by putting people on a MATS airplane for which we reimbursed the Military Air Transport Service, and these costs, very frankly, are high. There have also been the minor conferences which I mentioned previously.

Mr. CEDERBERG. These include the present travel that is going on now?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Even though he is not still an Under Secretary, it is still included under this appropriation?

Mr. JONES. This is the catch phrase that has been given to it, and now as the President's special representative with particular responsibility for African, Asian, and Latin American affairs, the tour Mr. Bowles is engaged in ends up week after next in an ambassadorial conference in the Philippines.

Mr. CEDERBERG. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1962.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, UNDER SECRETARIES, AND CERTAIN STAFF OFFICES-DOMESTIC

WITNESSES

LUCIUS D. BATTLE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT

JAMES J. BYRNES, JR., EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

ROGER W. JONES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

WILLIAM J. CROCKETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. ROONEY. The first of the items under "Salaries and expenses" is entitled "Office of the Secretary, Under Secretaries, and Certain Staff Offices-Domestic," which appears beginning at page 35 of the justifications.

83621-62

We shall insert that page along with pages 36 through 42 at this point in the record.

(The pages referred to follow:)

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, UNDER SECRETARIES, AND CERTAIN STAFF OFFICESDOMESTIC

Increase-decrease statement, fiscal year 1962 and 1963

Reflects a net increase of 22 positions over the amount requested in the fiscal year 1962 budget estimate. This net increase consists of a gross increase of 92 positions (80 positions in fiscal year 1962 supplemental authorization and 12 unbudgeted positions) offset by a decrease of 47 positions to fund priority needs of other offices and a decrease of 23 positions due to interoffice transfers (13 to the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 6 to the Bureau of Administration, and 4 to PER, Foreign Service).

Excludes $125,000 requested in the 1962 budget for policy research studies as this item is now included under the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and $7,412 transferred to the Bureau of Intelligence and Research for overtime and miscellaneous expenses.

The Secretary

STATEMENT OF FUNCTIONS

As head of the Department of State and the principal adviser to the President in the determination and execution of the foreign policy of the United States, the Secretary of State is charged with the responsibility for all activities of the Department.

The President's special representative. The President's special representative and adviser on African, Asian, and Latin American Affairs undertakes special foreign policy missions for the President. When not engaged on these special missions, the special representative works in an advisory capacity on general foreign policy matters.

Special Assistant for Special Political Problems.-The special assistant to the Secretary for Special Political Problems coordinates for or advises the Secretary on political matters of a temporary or specialized nature relating to foreign policy programs or problems.

Special Assistant for Atomic Energy and Outer Space.-The Special Assistant for Atomic Energy and Outer Space advises the Secretary on the formulation of policy and action as regards atomic energy and the exploration, use, and control of outer space, and serves as the focal point in the Department for coordination of all activities relating to these matters.

Special Assistant and Coordinator for International Labor Affairs.-The special assistant is responsible for supervising and coordinating international labor affairs in the Department of State. Advises on international labor matters as they affect or relate to U.S. foreign policy.

Operations Center.-The Operations Center is an instrument of the Secretary of State for rapid coordinated action on urgent foreign policy matters. It conducts a 24-hour comprehensive watch, follows up on important programs in process, and provides support for interdepartmental task forces.

Science adviser.-This officer is the principal adviser to the Secretary from the standpoint of science and technology. He is responsible for the direction of the oversea science program and serves as liaison officer with private and public scientific organizations such as the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences.