In a phrase used by the President in his message to the Congress, transmitting a proposal for the instant legislation the conduct of the foreign relations of the United States has become an increasingly momentous responsibility of our Federal Government. With this development the functions of the Department of State have become of increasingly critical importance. To quote again from the President's message: The foreign-affairs activities of this Government are carried on by a number of agencies, but the greatest share of the responsibility is borne by the Department of State. Moreover, the President, and the Congress as well, rely upon the Secretary of State to provide leadership among the Government agencies concerned with various aspects of foreign affairs and to recommend the steps necessary to achieve an integrated and consistent foreign policy. It The present bill has as its purpose to make it possible for the Department of State more adequately to fulfill its responsibilities as the staff arm of the Government in the field of foreign affairs. provides that the Department of State shall have, in addition to the Secretary of State, an Under Secretary of State and 10 Assistant Secretaries of State, 2 of whom may be designated by the Secretary as Deputy Under Secretaries. It provides that the Counselor and the Legal Adviser of the Department of State shall be on an equal basis in rank with the Assistant Secretaries. All of these officers are subject to Presidential appointment with senatorial confirmation. The bill establishes unequivocally the authority of the Secretary to administer the Department. It revises various terms of existing statutes vesting authority in departmental matters in officers within the Department and places all such responsibilities in the Secretary himself. It repeals the preexisting statutes which it succeeds. The bill, though simple and brief, is one of great consequence. It is to be fully understood only in the light of current plans of the Department to improve its internal arrangements. Those plans, moreover, can be completely accomplished only with the enactment of such a bill. This bill is recommended to the House as a measure of economy in the broadest sense. The Department has not pledged that it can reduce its budget on the basis of the present bill. It has, however, stated its intention to make the new organization work within the present expenditure limits to absorb through closer integration of its operations any additional costs entailed. The broad sense of economy to which the committee refers, however, is the sense that the Department must be enabled to function adequately so that efficiency will be promoted and inefficiency and unnecessary duplication rigorously pruned out of its organization. The Department, in response to a general desire that its mechanism be made adequate to the needs, has brought forth this proposal. The committee believes that it is substantially sound and represents a progressive step. No plan, however, is any better than the will to make it work. Ultimately the quality of an organization is determined not by statutes or by charts but by the integrity, resolution, and intelligence of those who do its work and provide its leadership. The committee believes this bill should be enacted. Applied with resolution, the reorganization plan which this bill would underwrite should produce results of great benefit. In recommending this legislation the committee takes the view that the critical question is the manner of its application. This will not be merely a departmental matter. It will be of moment to the Congress and to the public. The committee has the agreement of responsible officials of the Department of State to return to the committee at the end of 6 months to report fully upon the accomplishments realized under this legislation. The departmental reorganization for which this bill lays the groundwork has been prepared after long and painstaking study within the Department. Its principles are reflected in the report dealing with foreign affairs of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government under the chairmanship of former President Hoover (published as H. Doc. 79, 81st Cong.). To quote from that report: * ** * the Commission and its task force have kept in close touch with the organizational plans for the State Department The Commission is happy to say that its thinking and that of the State Department are in complete accord on principles, and, except for certain particulars *, the conclusions of both on specific changes are in agreement. * The Commission's observations of the needs of improvement will be used in the committee's report as the measuring rod for the changes envisaged in this legislation. The differences in detail between the Commission's proposal and the Department's plan are the following: (a) The former would abolish the position of Counselor of the Department of State, whereas the latter retains it; (b) the former would create two Under Secretaryships in the Department, while the latter would simply authorize the Secretary to designate two Assistant Secretaries as Under Secretaries; (c) the former would abolish the post of Director General of the Foreign Service, while the latter retains it. These points are discussed further at appropriate junctures in the instant report. The basic principles in both the Commission's report and the Department's plan are (a) a strong, clear, simple chain of authority and responsibility; (b) adequacy of staff, especially at the top level. In words from the relevant portion of the Commission report: * The State Department should be organized so that the Secretary of State, legally and practically, is in command of the Department and the Foreign Service, so that the line of command from the Secretary of State through the Under and Assistant Secretaries to the lowest level is clear and unencumbered, and so that the Secretary of State is provided with adequate staff services at the top level. * * This recommendation is fundamental. Its objectives, in terms of the internal organization of the State Department, are to simplify the structure, clarify the Secretary's authority, make his lines of command clear and free from interference, separate staff responsibility from action or line responsibility, and relieve the Secretary and Under Secretary from the burdensome details which now come to them, and thereby afford them an opportunity for thoughtful study of major policy problems. The two principles are mutually related. Adequacy of staff can be determined only in the light of the degree of authority and the scope of responsibility to be exercised. On the other hand, a chain of command can be no stronger than the integration and power developed at the top level of authority. II. THE CHAIN OF AUTHORITY A. THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION The significance of the principle of clear lines of authority and responsibility as embodied in the reorganization plans can be readily understood by referring to the accompanying charts, showing the scheme of organization of the Department of State as now constituted and the pattern as it will be after the reorganization has been put into effect. The first chart shows on its left side a cluster of six offices handling the political problems of the Department on a broad geographic basis, each with from four to six divisions representing the subarrangement of political problems into narrower geographic areas. These offices stand alone that is, without the interposition of an Assistant Secretary between them and the other portions of the chart. Next comes a vertical group of divisions handling various facets of United States relations to the United Nations, grouped under an Office of United Nations Affairs, and reporting to an Assistant Secretary for United Nations Affairs. The third group of elements, reading from left to right, represents three offices handling various aspects of economic foreign policy, each with from three to five divisions representing further distribution of functions, and all reporting to an Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs. The fourth group consists of an Office of Transport and Communications, with two divisions relating to aviation and to telecommunications. The fifth group represents the Department's intelligence establishment, with two offices, one for intelligence research and the other relating to acquisition of intelligence, each with various divisions, and both reporting to a special assistant to the Secretary. The sixth group relates to information and public affairs, with three offices respectively devoted to public affairs, information, and educational exchange, and all reporting to an Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. The seventh group relates to administration. Its component offices relate to internal control, administration of the Foreign Service, budget and planning, and departmental administration. Each has subordinate divisions ranging in number from two to six. These offices report to an Assistant Secretary for Administration. The outstanding characteristic of this arrangement is its collateralness, that is, functions being placed on a level coordinate with other functions, so that a line of action can be defined only by gaining the concurrence of two or perhaps several more other agencies on the same footing. This represents a cumbersome application of the idea of checks. and balances in the field of executive action. It is this arrangement which the report of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government characterizes as "the present intolerable system of coordinate authority whereby concurrences in different chains of command within the Department are required" and which the Commission says "should be eliminated." B. THE CONTEMPLATED ORGANIZATION The new chart eliminates the functional elements from the operating level. Line responsibility is placed in five bureaus, four of them on a regional basis relating to the American Republics, European affairs, far eastern affairs, and near eastern and African affairs, respectively; the fifth relating to the problems and responsibilities of participation in international organizations. Each of these five will have an Assistant SPECIAL RESEARCH AP OFFICE OF OR DIVISION OF RESEARCH FOR AMERICAN REPUBLICS DRA DIVISION OF RESEARCH FOR EUROPE DRE DIVISION OF RESEARCH FOR FAR EAST DRF DIVISION OF DRN DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL IFI CONSULAR OFFICES |