Mr. STEFAN. I thought you gave me a figure of $400,000 for the General Services Administration.

Mr. WILBER. Three hundred and ninety-nine thousand-odd dollars is the amount that the Bureau transferred so far.

Mr. STEFAN. Yes. You think you will have about $600,000 that the General Services Administration will be paying for rent for New York?

Mr. WILBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEFAN. That will include the building up there, will it not? Mr. WILBER. No. You mean the new building?

Mr. STEFAN. Yes; which you are asking in the supplemental.

Mr. WILBER. When we get that new building we would not need this rent, Mr. Stefan.

Mr. STEFAN. You would not need the $400,000?

Mr. WILBER. We would not need any rental at all, as I understand it, if we get the new building.

Mr. STEFAN. But as of now it will be about $600,000?

Mr. WILBER. Slightly over $600,000; yes.

Mr. STEFAN. If you get the new building, the $600,000 will be out? Mr. WILBER. Yes; except there are a number of items included under "Rents and utilities," such as the rental of office equipment, and so forth. That would be continued.

Mr. STEFAN. I just mean the physical buildings. As of now it is about $395,000; it will be about $600,000, and if you get the new building next year, you will not need any.

Mr. WILBER. I am sure that is correct, unless it is necessary to have some auxiliary studios outside of any building we get.

Mr. STEFAN. There are many questions that I would like to ask on this subject, but I have to go to the floor of the House. I want to reserve any further questioning.

OFFICES IN PROPOSED NEW BUILDING

Mr. CLEVENGER. This same tremendous growth gives me concern. If you get the building, what will be housed in it?

Mr. WILBER. The USIE program will be the program in that building.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Was there not a third one?

Mr. WILBER. There was some thought given to bringing in the passport agencies and the dispatch agencies.

Mr. CLEVENGER. That is out?

Mr. WILBER. All that depends upon the size of the building we finally get.

Mr. CLEVENGER. This all moves toward one end-permanence; it means as you are housed in a permanent building.

Mr. WILBER. You could imply that, although there are great needs for additional space in New York City apart from this program. Mr. CLEVENGER. This is a peculiar growth. It multiplies very rapidly. The whole thing seems to tie into a great general pattern. It is the pattern that alarms me, not so much the individual parts. They do alarm me to some extent, because they come up in our appropriations, but it is the whole, the growth of this idea that alarms me. I have no desire to go any further into the details of this.

REDUCTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE-COST FACTORS

Mr. FLOOD. You will find that in direct ratio to the increase in this budget the administrative costs naturally increase.

Mr. WILBER. Not proportionately. Even under this estimate the Department considers that it has already a basic core of an administrative structure.

Mr. FLOOD. One thing I cannot understand after following the success of Mr. Woolworth and the F. M. Kirby Stores for so many years, why is it that the bigger your program gets your cost figures or factors remain so stationary? Why does not your cost factor go. down the bigger you get?

Mr. WILBER. They actually are. Regarding our relationship in the Foreign Service of custodial, security, chauffeur, budgeting, and so forth, the ratio is nearly 1 to 1. That is a peculiar relationship for the State Department because of the field operation. For this program we have budgeted only one administrative person to each three program people, so in effect we are bringing that ratio down on the assumption that we already have a hard core.

EXPLANATION OF TRANSPORTATION OF THINGS

Mr. MARSHALL. I would like to return to page 705 of the justifications. Referring again to the matter of "Transportation of things," in 1951 you show $672,940. Can you tell me how much of that is obligated at the present time?

Mr. WILBER. I could not on this specific item because we make the transfer into the "Salary and expense" appropriation and we have one allotment for "Transportation of things." I can tell you what the obligations are against the composite for the Department, which includes this amount for this year.

Mr. MARSHALL. You could not tell me what is unobligated in this particular item?

Mr. WILBER. That is subject to the same complexity. In other words, we are working for total support against a total allotment. I could break it out. I could say-proportionately, this is what the obligations are.

Mr. MARSHALL. For the purpose of understanding this particular item, the over-all unobligated balance of the Department would not give me the answer that I would want.

Mr. WILBER. It should be proportionate. If our factors are right, an obligation against this would be in the same ratio as an obligation against the total.

Mr. MARSHALL. Am I correct in this-any fund out of this sum that is not obligated by June 30, automatically goes back to the Treasury? Mr. WILBER. That is correct, because it is a part of the total funds available to the Department, which revert to the Treasury if unused. Mr. MARSHALL. Going back over a year when you set the budget up, you set that up, did you on the basis of these household goods and those things being transported?

Mr. WILBER. Yes.

Mr. MARSHALL. So you would almost be sure, because of some lapse of getting some of these things done, and your recruitment of personnel, of turning back on June 30 of this year quite a substantial sum?

CARRY-OVER FUNDS

Mr. WILBER. On that particular item it is not particularly pertinent because we have special language under the appropriation that allows us to pay next year for travel where the order is written this year, so you get a compensating overlap there and a compensating availability of funds.

In the "Salaries and expense" appropriation I believe our balance in 1950 was something over $400,000. That is out of total availability in the S. and E. account of $78,152,100 plus this transfer. I mean when you get down to that small balance it is really astounding that we can do that well.

Mr. MARSHALL. What do you do when you set up your figure this year of $865,317 for the "Transportation of things"-do you subtract from that figure the amount of funds that you expect to carry over?

Mr. WILBER. We are always providing for the current year requirement plus whatever carry-over we will get from the orders written within the year.

Mr. MARSHALL. When you make an estimate of $865,317 for the "Transportation of things", you are doing some pretty wild guessing, are you not, as to what is going to happen?

Mr. WILBER. We are subject to a lot of variables; there is no question about that. In our actual programing, in carrying out the estimate, from time to time we have to make changes in our financial plan of operation. That necessity has led us into a difficulty before the committee this year. Due to those variables, we are faced with the necessity of reprograming and effectively using the funds that we have. The number of positions for possible transfer may exceed or fall below our estimates. All of these are merely based upon our best experience and, as you say, they are flexible. They are almost undeterminable as far as accuracy is concerned.

Mr. MARSHALL. Have you ever had any difficulty from underestimating this particular item?

Mr. WILBER. Yes. I can give you a good example. In Korea we had set up in our financial plan the sum of about $120,000 for the administrative operation of our Korean operation. Due to the evacuation and the failure to secure participating funds from the Army, on the one part, and the ECA, who were not there after the aggression started, we have accrued a liability in Korea of some $600,000.

Mr. MARSHALL. Are you now carrying the $600,000 over into the next year's budget to take care of that?

Mr. WILBER. No. In that case we have had to reprogram. We have had to cut down on supplies, equipment, and other items in order to take care of that commitment.

Mr. MARSHALL. But you are able to stay within your over-all budget?

Mr. WILBER. Yes.

Mr. MARSHALL. Therefore, if you can take care of such an item. of such consequence as that one, it would indicate that you are somewhat overgenerous in your estimates; is that not so?

REIMBURSEMENT BETWEEN APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. WILBER. No, sir. We are paying a penalty for it somewhere. I would like to attribute that, if I may be immodest, to effective financial administration. I think that I should point out in connection with this item that of course the transfer provision has been excluded from the language. The transfer of funds for administrative support in the future will be under section 601 of the Economy Act, which provides for the reimbursement between the two appropriations for services rendered.

Mr. FLOOD. What is your personal opinion about the two methods? Mr. WILBER. I think by far this is the better method. As the USIE program changes in any particular, the requirements for administrative support change, and in this manner USIE can get from us, if you please, what they need and what they require at the time they need it. Mr. FLOOD. It is much better for us, I will say that.

Mr. WILBER. Yes.

LANGUAGE CHANGES

Mr. FLOOD. The first language change that I notice on page 50, where there is a substitution of the word "programs" for the word "program." That is just editorial, I take it, for the purpose of brevity. Mr. MAY. Yes.

Mr. FLOOD. Then there is the substitution of "20 USC 222-224" for "Public Law 265," which is a mere deletion and substitution and is nothing significant.

Mr. WILBER. That is correct.

Mr. FLOOD. The same thing would be true with reference to the deletion of reference to personal services in the District of Columbia?

EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO CIVIL SERVICE

Now, what about the next one, increase in the authorization for employment, without regard to the civil service and classification laws, or persons on a temporary basis?

Mr. MAY. That is an authorization to employ special personnel without having to go through the Civil Service Commission machinery. We are permitted under this, if we find a person with unusual abilities that we need in the program, to hire him without having him qualify through the Civil Service Commission through the usual examination process.

Mr. FLOOD. You are setting no precedent?

Mr. MAY. No, sir. We have been doing it all along.

Mr. FLOOD. And it is not limited to your organization or to your department?

Mr. MAY. No. This increase is for the USIE program, used primarily in the field of radio.

Mr. FLOOD. There is such a practice in other Government departments?

Mr. MAY. It has been done for several years.

Mr. FLOOD. The next is the provision for the employment of aliens abroad for services in the United States.

Mr. WILBER. Off the record, please. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. FLOOD. Will you place in the record the reference to the act of September 29, 1950, Public Law 861, with references to the sums available to the Iranian Government?

This trust account was established by the act of September 29, 1950 (Public Law 861, 81st Cong.), for the education of Iranian students in the United States. During the fiscal year 1951, it is expected that 10 grants will be made for such education, and during the fiscal year 1952, 18 additional grants will be made.

Mr. FLOOD. Now we come to the provision for the employment of aliens abroad for service in the United States. I gather that is provided in 1952 for the authority necessary to recruit aliens abroad. We had that in the fiscal year 1951 supplemental?

Mr. MAY. That is true. It is being broadened to include the transportation of household effects. There has been some doubt about that being included in the present language.

Mr. FLOOD. What about the language from the semicolon at the bottom of page 50 on:

Travel expenses of aliens employed abroad for service in the United States and transportation of their household effects and dependents to and from the United States.

Are you satisfied that you have a legislative platform on which to base that? The first point I am satisfied with.

Mr. WILBER. Our legal people indicate that title 22, United States Code, 1471 (5) and 1472, 62 Statutes 12, is the justification. Mr. FLOOD. You better put that in the record at this point. Mr. WILBER. I will be glad to do that.