FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE

Senator KILGORE. Let me ask you a question. In the Department of the Army we have an Infantry School at Fort Benning, an Artillery School at Fort Sill, a Line School at Knox, the Engineering School across the river over here. We have the Command General Staff School at Leavenworth. We have the War College at Fort McNair. What does the State Department have to compare with that?

Mr. HENDERSON. We have this Institute which should be developed into something worthwhile, but we have never been able to do it. Senator ELLENDER. How much money have you in order to try and operate it?

Mr. WILBER. We have had a million dollars in 1955.

Senator ELLENDER. How many students are you able to take care of? Mr. WILBER. The Director of the Institute will be here tomorrow, and I know he has all those facts at his disposal. I do not have them right here.

Senator ELLENDER. In addition to this facility, is it not true that you also send men abroad to make studies in an embassy or in a legation? They work there under somebody who has been there and who knows the ropes?

Mr. HENDERSON. In the past years, Mr. Senator, we have had students assigned abroad for language study. Those numbers are very limited at the present time.

Senator ELLENDER. I found a few out there in my travels, and I think that it is a most effective way to do it; to have them under the tutorship of the people with experience in the field.

Mr. WILBER. Part of this new program, Senator, is to establish a number of additional such centers.

FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

Senator KILGORE. Let me finish up. I left out the Military Academy at West Point. I left off the fact that we send our Engineer officers to MIT, Sheffield, Cornell. We send our Judge Advocate General officers to Columbia University and Harvard. I could go on down the line.

The State Department is a Department designed to prevent war, am I not right, Mr. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. That is one of our tasks, and our most important task.

Senator KILGORE. Whereas, the other Department is a Defense Department to protect us in the event of war. In other words, if the State Department fails, the Defense Department steps in. Is that not right?

Mr. HENDERSON. That is right.

Senator KILGORE. I just wanted to get that in the record once.

COMPARATIVE TRAINING PROGRAMS

Mr. HENDERSON. May I say, Mr. Senator, that I haven't the figures in front of me. They would be rather difficult to obtain-but I am sure that the officers of the armed services spend at least 5 times the number of years of their years in training, 5 times more than our people

are able to spend. The average professor in a university gets a sabbatical year, 1 out of 7. We do not have anything like that. They also have the summers to study in. Our people are scattered all over the world in remote places. They gradually lose touch with the current trends. They should be brought back periodically to be refreshed and know what is going on, to see what new factors have appeared on the scene. That is not being done.

When they reach middle age and should be prepared for the highest post in the service, it is sad how many of them have certain deficiencies, are lacking in certain qualifications because they have not had the training they should have had.

COMPARISON WITH BRITISH FOREIGN SERVICE

Senator KILGORE. Mr. Henderson, I noted this in my observation. of the embassies in Washington. For instance, I remember very well that the industrial attaché at the British Embassy who was on duty in this country for about 18 years would every 2 years go back to England for a while. I could get information from that man that I could hardly get from the N. A. or the chamber of commerce. He knew it. Every 2 years he went back to England and spent 2 or 3 months. Is that right about all the foreign diplomatic people as compared to our own?

Mr. HENDERSON. I would not say all. I believe the British have an exceptionally good diplomatic service. I think we also have a good diplomatic service. I believe that the countries which have the best diplomatic service make it a practice that their people should become experts in certain lines and that they should also keep closely acquainted with the affairs in their own country as well as in the countries to which they are accredited.

Senator KILGORE. My next-door neighbor was the secretary to the German Embassy years ago. He had been in this country for about 20 years, but he had at regular intervals gone back to Germany.

My thought was this: I am thinking about our dealings with other countries. The longer we keep people over there without them getting completely allied with those countries by reason of complete separation from this country, the more valuable they are to us; but if at regular intervals they are brought back to meet their relatives and friends and get used to the new trends and then go back, their knowledge of that country is going to be of tremendous value to this country. Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, Mr. Senator, that is in general true. It depends to an extent upon the country. If the country should be a country like the United States, it would be quite possible for one of our officers to stay there for a great many years, come back here for a while, go there again, and so forth; particularly if he is working in a technical field. If the country is not a country that is richly developed, I think it would be better for this officer to be transferred from time to time to other posts in order that he might keep himself better informed regarding conditions in the world.

We have learned through experience that there are certain dangers if we keep an officer engaged in broader types of reporting on broader types of study too long in a certain country or too long in a certain area. He might get a case of what we call localitis. He might commence to see the world either from the point of view of the country

in which he is stationed, or he may see it from a bilateral point of view; from the point of view of the United States and of the country in which he is stationed, forgetting the fact that the relations between the United States and the country to which he is accredited are not the only important things in the world. An officer must always remember that the United States has relations with other countries. Therefore, we do need a certain amount of rotation.

With regard to officers performing work of a technical character or even those engaging in general political work, I think that too rapid transfers are bad for the Service and bad for them. The fact is, to be quite frank, I believe we have had too many transfers during recent years. I think more officers should stay at post for 2 years, take leave, and then go back for another 2 years-maybe even for an additional 2 years.

Senator ELLENDER. You mean at the same post?

Mr. HENDERSON. At the same post.

INADEQUACY OF FUNDS FOR TRAVEL IN DESIGNATED COUNTRY

Senator ELLENDER. There is another deficiency that I have found in my travels to the various posts, and that is that we do not provide sufficient funds to the embassy or legation so that traveling can be done by our representatives there in the country where he is.

Mr. HENDERSON. You are right.

Senator ELLENDER. I just think it is an expense to be justified and ought to be provided for.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am going to read a letter very soon which mentions that very fact.

PERSONNEL TURNOVER

I would like to say this, too: One of our greatest troubles is in the rapid turnover of our clerical employees. It is very difficult to get a clerical employee to take a hardship post who will remain there more than 2 years, and we are going to continue to have those difficulties unless we can make life a little more pleasant for these people.

We, who are in the professional service, who are professional men, become interested in our work. We do not care much about the environment in which we live; but our clerical employees have to live outside their office and it is difficult for them sometimes.

Senator KILGORE. Would you put down a little later your suggestions for improving the working conditions of these clerical employees you are talking about, prepare something for the record?

Mr. HENDERSON. I shall be glad to.

(The information referred to follows:)

IMPROVEMENT IN WORKING CONDITIONS OF CLERICAL EMPLOYEES

The Department is attempting to improve the working conditions for its clerical employees in several areas. Some of these areas are:

1. Home leave in the United States promptly after 2 years service abroad. 2. Provision for adequate recreational facilities.

3. Adequate housing.

4. Commissary facilities.

One of the most important conditions of employment the Department can make to its clerical employees is the assurance of prompt return to their home areas in the United States at Government expense after 2 years service abroad.

Un

fortunately, during the past 2 years there have been periods when the Department has been unable to live up to this schedule of home leave due to a shortage of funds.

Under the present plan, the Department is returning most of its clerical employees to the United States after 2 years service abroad but, to some degree at the expense of prolonging the tours of duty abroad of its other employees. Our 1956 budget estimate provides sufficient funds to permit a 2-year home-leave program for all employees.

Another important consideration is the need to provide Government-furnished housing for clerical employees assigned to posts where adequate housing is in short supply and where other hardship conditions exist. The Department is moving in this direction as rapidly as appropriated funds will permit.

At many posts clerical employees do not have the advantage of free diplomatic entry and must pay duty to import foods and other personal items. In other areas, the lack of recreational facilities for these employees has become a matter of considerable concern. The Department is studying both of these programs to determine what improvements can be made.

DEFICIENCIES OF THE SERVICE

Mr. HENDERSON. For years we have been finding it necessary to assign to critical posts officers who have not had the opportunity for learning the language of the area. We are constantly short of specialists of the various kinds because of our lack of training facilities. In the upper classes of the Service there are too many officers whose utility is weakened by a lack of knowledge in fields in which they should have been given training during the years gone by.

The Wriston Committee recommended that the direction of the Institute be committed to a man of first-class ability who will undertake to make it a powerful factor in the development of Foreign Service personnel.

The Director, Harold B. Hoskins, who took charge of the Institute on March 8, will later present to your committee a statement of the progress already made and the specific plans he has developed for reorganizing and revitalizing our training activities. Mr. Hoskins has rendered distinguished service in the fields of business and education as well as for the Department of State at home and abroad.

I am confident that with his experience, imagination and drive he will supply the required leadership in working out the kind of training program urgently needed for the Foreign Service. Our training program should represent a long-term investment. If maintained year after year, we should eventually have a Foreign Service better able to represent the American people both in highly technical and the general fields. Mr. Hoskins will be here tomorrow, and I hope he will explain to your committee something of the plans for our institute.

FOREIGN-BUILDINGS PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman, I wish also to discuss briefly the Department's foreign-building program. You will note there is before you today a budget for 1956 for this activity in the amount of $9,200,000 which has been cut by House action to $7 million, out of which only $750,000 would be in dollars. We hope that the full amount can be restored. In my opinion the $9,200,000 requested would not be sufficient to meet all of our urgent needs for office space and housing abroad during the coming year. We really are in need of twice that amount.

The Department in 1952 submitted to the Congress and obtained its approval for an increased authorization for our building program

of $90 million largely from foreign credits owned by or owed to the United States. Today, 4 years later, there still remains an urgent need for a construction and acquisition program in excess of $75 million. With the appropriations which we have received during the past few years, we have not been able to meet even the most pressing needs for housing, office space, and repair, maintenance and operation of the properties which we already own. Our needs for foreign buildings in the ever-shifting world situations are in fact as great as they were in 1952. Our demands are getting bigger and we just do not keep up with them.

USE OF FOREIGN CREDITS

Senator KILGORE. How much in the form of foreign credits that we are authorized to spend could be utilized?

Mr. HENDERSON. I would say it would roughly break about $60 million counterpart, and the balance in dollars.

Senator KILGORE. Can you prepare a statement on where you need this money, where we could use foreign exchange-now in the Treasury Department?

Mr. WILBER. I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman, and put it in the record.

LIST OF FACILITIES CONTEMPLATED

Senator KILGORE. Possibly we could take care of a whole lot of appropriations with counterpart funds which otherwise would be wasted.

Senator ELLENDER. In that connection, may I suggest this: Give us information showing how much counterpart, let us say, we might have in England that we might be able to use over here in Paraguay. Mr. WILBER. That is being done all the time, Senator.

Senator ELLENDER. If you could, in addition to what Senator Kilgore has asked, I wish you would give us the maximum amount of counterpart funds you could use plus how much dollars you need in order to utilize these counterpart funds; and if you could furnish us a list of the facilities that you hope to build, where located, and about the approximate cost.

Mr. WILBER. I will be very happy to do that, Senator. (The information referred to follows:)

PROPOSED FOREIGN BUILDINGS PROGRAM FOR 4-YEAR PERIOD, 1957-60, INCLUSIVE

The situation with respect to availabilities of foreign credits has changed materially since 1948.

At the outset surpluses existed in the holdings of many kinds of currencies. In the interim these surpluses have been consumed and many of the debts payable in foreign currency have been liquidated. Residual balances available in foreign exchange are concentrated in comparatively few countries.

Originally the foreign building program was the major user of foreign credits. The United States Treasury was willing to reserve large holdings of foreign exchange for the exclusive use of the building program. Now, by Treasury regulation, all United States agencies must use Treasury holdings available for the purpose. It is the policy of the Treasury not to reserve foreign exchange holdings for long-range needs. Convertible holdings in excess of current disbursing needs are converted into currencies in short supply. As the project planning of the building program must lead payments in foreign exchange by several years, this Treasury policy precludes definite planning on financing from known or reserved exchange

resources.