help of your embassies, and so forth. Moreover, the two advisory commissions that were set up by Congress and appointed by the President both said: "Barrett, you have got to have more careful planning and more detailed planning country by country. If you don't, you are wasting some of this program." In our conferences with the substantive committees, the point was touched on time and again, sir.

The National Security Council came along and asked us to draw up detailed plans to be incorporated in a hush-hush superplan for what goes on in the next few years under any eventualities. The White House told us that the President wanted us to do some master planning on certain countries, which I will mention off the record.

The new Interdepartmental Psychological Strategy Board emphasized very heavily that more detailed planning in this field was needed. The representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was particularly vehement on that point, and I must say that I agreed with him.

So I called in my deputy, Mr. Sargeant, and I called in Mr. Cook, who is now administrative chief for Eric Johnston, and I asked them to figure out how we might staff up to do all of this essential planning that was necessary. They worked it out, and it meant the addition of 19 people, including the clerical help of what is called the policy advisory staff. It is not a supervisory staff, I feel, in the sense that Congress meant that. But it is connected to my office.

On the basis of that, I asked the budget officers and the personnel officers to put this plan into effect as soon as they could. It meant the switching of about two-tenths of 1 percent of the personnel authorized from one type of job to another. Plans were laid for that, and then, frankly, I wake up here and find that, oh, my God, I have increased the supervisory staff, and Congress said that we should not do so, and the subcommittee specifically said that we should not do so. I must plead guilty on that, sir, to a boner. I should personally have come up and checked with the committee, I believe, before that was done. I apologize for not doing so.

I want to point out that we still are operating that policy advisory staff within the budget authorized by this committee, and we have not gone up to the 39 jobs shown on there. These 39 jobs are shown on there for bookkeeping reasons that you explored yesterday.

Mr. MARSHALL. It was not my purpose to reopen all that has gone on in this hearing. This question comes up. As my good colleague, Mr. Flood, has said, many people fear that the long-haired people have taken over this program. There is a fear on the part of people that this program is being rapidly expanded and mushroomed without too much understading of what is going on. There is a real feeling on the part of some people that there is a lack of management in the Voice of America program. Those are things that, of course, we question you about and those things I personally should like to see you, as administrator, take a look at during the next year and, if you make some improvements and undoubtedly you will, if you are a good administrator, as I think you are, you will come back here and be able to report progress.

Mr. BARRETT. I appreciate that, sir. I did not mean to get into that long dissertation, but I did want to explain what I think was an error on our part and I did want to apologize for it.

Mr. MARSHALL. I do not believe we should proceed any further on that, Mr. Chairman.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS REGIONAL BUREAUS

Mr. FLOOD. The next item is public affairs regional bureaus, at page 698 of the justifications. If there is no objection, we will insert page 698 in the record at this time.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Summary of requirements by object of expense

Mr. FLOOD. I notice that there is a request for $722,479. That is an increase of $122,743 over the amount set up in the 1951 estimate. If there is no objection, we shall insert in the record at this time that part of page 699 which is designated as "A, General justification," which in a sentence indicates generally the purpose of this part of the budget.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

GENERAL JUSTIFICATION

The regional bureau public-affairs staffs, under the direction of the assistant secretary in charge of each area, have the responsibility for policy coordination, program planning, and guidance for "Information and educational exchange" activities in the countries within their geographic areas; for recommending basic objectives, specific program plans, and media-program priorities, as well as country priorities, in accordance with the policies of the Department, the public-affairs area, and the regional bureaus.

Mr. FLOOD. I see that there is no increase in the number of positions requested for the budget year.

Î notice you are setting up 95 trips costing $5,405 to New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, for consultants and advisers on program activities within their respective areas. That amounts to something over $57 a trip. Is there anything magical about that figure, $57?

EXPLANATION OF THE 1951 COLUMN OF THE 1952 ESTIMATE

Mr. MAY. May I make a statement before I answer that, sir?

Mr. FLOOD. Yes.

Mr. MAY. I want to call attention of the committee to the fact that the amount in the 1951 column for this activity is in excess of the amount which was approved by the committee last year.

Mr. FLOOD. For what activity?

Mr. MAY. For this regional public-affairs staff. I want to make that clear in the record.

Mr. FLOOD. It is about $80,839 over the amount allowed?

Mr. MAY. That is correct, sir. I would like to add one word to that: That this "1951 estimate" column in this instance reflects accurately the activity and the adjustments that we had in mind at the time we brought it up to the committee.

I would like to say also that the regional bureau chiefs and the Assistant Secretaries for the geographic areas felt in their best judgment that they would need that level of staffing to carry the program. However, at the present time it is clear that we will be able to operate within the amount approved by the Congress, and we shall do so. In other words, the lapses are more than we anticipated.

Mr. FLOOD. Are there any questions?

Mr. STEFAN. What do you mean by saying that you spent more money in 1951 than was authorized?

Mr. MAY. Mr. Stefan, in the regular budget, we asked for some 80 positions, amounting to $418,897. In the supplemental we requested 49 positions, $152,908. The committee did not allow that, but allowed only $100,000 in the supplemental, so that the figure in this 1951 column reflects $80,000 above the amount approved in the regular and the supplemental by this committee.

Mr. STEFAN. What you are saying, then, is that you are spending $80,000 more than you were allowed by the committee?

Mr. MAY. What I should state, to be absolutely accurate, is this: That this column reflects a projection through next June of the amount, $80,000

Mr. STEFAN. Where did you get the money that you used, which you were not allowed by the Congress, this $80,000?

Mr. MAY. There have been, as you know, some lapses in excess of that anticipated.

Mr. STEFAN. And you just absorbed it without an authorization of the committee?

Mr. MAY. We absorbed it. It was possible to do that due to the delay in hiring personnel.

Mr. STEFAN. No further questions.

Mr. BARRETT. But that amount will not be spent; only the authorized amount will be spent this year.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PROGRAM (NONECONOMIC)

Mr. FLOOD. The next item is "Scientific and technical program (noneconomic)." As I think we are all aware, and as indicated at pages 701 and 702 of the justifications, no funds are requested for 1952 in this budget. This is a program of economic matters which

were transferred to the Technical Cooperation Administration, otherwise known as point 4; and, while this heretofore had been part of our budget, it is now in the point 4 budget and before another subcommittee.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TRANSFER

That takes us to the "Administrative support transfer" on page 703. If there is no objection, we will put pages 704, 705, and 706, which are detailed justifications of this request, in the record at this time. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

Mr. FLOOD. The amount requested for 1952, as set forth on page 706 of the justifications, amounts to $17,465,848, which is an increase of $6,385,061 over the 1951 figure, which, in turn, was $11,080,787. The regular bill authorized $2,875,000 for "Administrative expenses." The supplemental authorization was $5 million. The remainder, of course, would be that part which is carried under the State Department budget and described as "Salaries and expenses."

I think you should show for the record how you have changed these designations under this new performance budget and how you now indicate the so-called performance budget for the USIE appropriation as distinguished from the single "Administrative support" cost as heretofore set up under one item for the State Department.

Mr. WILBER. I should be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. As the committee knows, in the past, we have budgeted for the total "Administrative support" requirements for both the regular program and the USIE program under the S. and E. justifications. In other words, we have been dealing in total obligations for all administrative requirements of the Department for the regular and the USIE programs.

Then the committee has established an amount to be transferred from the USIE program over to the "Salaries and expenses" appropriation, so that all the expenditures and obligations were made directly from the S. and E. allotments for those items.

In furtherance of the Hoover Commission recommendation and the wishes of the Congress in an attempt to establish the true prorated cost of the administrative services that should be charged to each program we, at the time of the supplemental last year, made a very careful analysis of the various parts of the Department, the various service areas of the Department, to find out what the pro rata cost would be per program person. In so doing we arrived at the fact that instead of the true cost being $7,875,000 in 1951, which was the amount of the transfer, that the true cost was $11,080,787. We, therefore, have reflected this year in this budget a comparative reduction in the "Salaries and expenses" appropriation of the difference between this $7,875,000 and the true cost of $11,080,787, or an amount of $3,615,000, which we have deducted from the base of the "Salaries and expenses" appropriation. We have also reflected in our S. and E.