and you have to get there with a specific, definite thing that touches the people. You cannot do that overnight and you cannot do it by waving your hand.

It takes time and all kinds of patience, and the thing that we give, plus a little technical assistance or guidance, is leadership. The willingness of Americans to go out in this area and take off their coats and say to the village leaders in an area of villagers, "Come on, let's tackle this problem," is worth more than all the other things and money we are spending on the thing.

I can tell you here by the hour where the influence of one individual has completely revolutionized areas and housing and agricultural things.

I have one illustration back here. One man in Burma through sheer advice and intelligence and commonsense, has sparked off a $100 million housing program for the refugees and the people in Burma. A village of a kind that the people can build themselves, a kind that is practical, sanitary and healthful.

That is the kind of thing that this program is about. When it ceases to be that, it is not a technical assistance program.

Mr. VORYS. I have a question that applies to this area, but it is general:

As of February you had 234 in program direction and 318 technicians.

Now, is it on any such basis as that that you intend to increase the personnel?

Mr. ANDREWS. There again that is a problem of bookkeeping and accounting, Mr. Vorys. There is a big debate on what is program direction and what is technician.

For instance, we have public health. In every country we generally have a man from public health who is on the staff of the country director. He is essentially a technician, but at the same time, there will be maybe a sanitary engineer, maybe a nurse, maybe some training people under him working with the host country's people, and on one system of bookkeeping somebody argues, "Well, that fellow is a technician, he ought to be classed as a technician."

Somebody else calls it program direction.

We had here a system whereby we called everybody in Washington administrative and everybody in the field technicians, but the General Accounting Office and others wanted it to go the other way and we had to make that division and there is an awful argument about what is program direction and what is technical.

Mr. VORYS. Are there four public health officers who are the program directors?

I refer to the figures based on your own payroll for February for this Near East and Africa area. It is typical, however. There are 234 in program direction, and 318 technicians.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, sir, all I can tell you is that that is a matter of bookkeeping. There is not a man setting up here directing two people, and under this new definition which is being put in here

Mr. VORYS. Directing just about one. It is about 50-50, generals and privates in the technical assistance army, based on the payroll records.

Mr. ANDREWS. According to the books and according to that record, that is absolutely true, but in fact that is not true because this public health man may be classed as a program director.

As a matter of fact, he is a technician, he is carrying out work and goes into the field and works as a technician.

Under the new bookkeeping system-and the hearings caught us right in the middle of that-these things will be reclassified and the figure for the Middle East is this:

There were 691 people in the Middle East as April 30; 564 were technicans, and 127 were in program direction.

That is the clearest distinction we can make between the program directors.

Mr. VORYS. Is this all just bookkeeping mistakes? Is it a case of simply changing the books?

This is pretty impressive, Mr. Andrews. If our whole system of Government accounting is so bad that they require you to list as a program director somebody who is not a program director, that calls for an investigation.

Mr. ANDREWS. I did not want to prolong this hearing on details. Mr. VORYS. Let me say that this may not be prolonged at this moment, but this is not a detail. There are two things-what I suspect is this: Last year I asked Mr. Bingham, your predecessor, "Have you recruited or have you any plan for recruiting these devoted and able and qualified 2,000 technicians?"

Answer: "Yes, sir, we do."

And, he went on and answered, and you have not got them yet.
Mr. ANDREWS. That is right, sir.

Mr. VORYS. If what is happening is that you cannot get devotedthese are quoted words, as to the only kind of technicians we ought to send out "devoted and able and qualified" technicians.

Now, if it means that you cannot get a devoted and able and qualified technican, so you say, "All right, put him on the payroll as program direction".

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Or take him out of agriculture and send him into Burma. I know one man there who does not know any more about it than the man in the moon.

Mr. ANDREWS. When TCA was set up, the procedures inherent in the State Department means of bookkeeping and obligating funds was put in, simply because it was a part of the State Department.

It was very evident last year in the hearings before this committee, and also the Appropriations Committee, that that system of making an obligation and letting the vouchers against it, a very detailed sort of thing-which works well for a diplomatic corps; something not moving fast, like these operating programs are that that would not provide Congress or ourselves with the operating material and the operating data that we must have.

We called in General Accounting Office, people from the State Department and all over the Government, to set up a record and accounting system which would give the information right down to the village and where it came from and where the money was spent, and where the plan is and all that sort of thing.

That was introduced in the countries just about 6 months ago and it is just now in the process of getting going.

About two-thirds of our countries are operating on it. We have the rest of them operating on the old system trying to change it over. Under the system as now prevailing, as I said before, there is a clear distinction between program direction and technicians. On the point of the technicians we have, as I said in my original statement here, not reached the objective of 2,460 people overall, as we expected. We cut it back last January to 2,150, and we are expecting to have around 1,950 by June 30, and I want to say this, and I am deferring to Mrs. Bolton on this particular point:

It is very important that you have a job, a specific place for the man to go and know specifically what he is going to do before you get a technician out there.

Otherwise, you have a man churning around here and taking up space and not doing anything.

A lot of times the Government will say, "I want this fellow," but we know he has to have a job and there is to be something for him to do it on.

In Beirut and in India there were cases where technicians were rushed out there and when you came to the job to do, it was not there and you had to fool around and make-well I would not say make excuses, but at least try to find a place for the fellow to work out.

At the present time, we do know the job is there for the man and we send the man out only when we have that because it is waste of money and a waste of time and a waste of personnel otherwise.

Mr. VORYS. Also on this same area, as to the direction in the Department of State, that TCA has about twice as many people occupying desks in the State Department as the State Department itself does.

For instance, in Israel there are 10 for TCA and 4 for State. In Iraq, TCA, 10, State, 6; Ethiopia and Liberia, 9; and State has 7 for west central and east Africa.

Can you explain why that is and whether there might be a possibility of changing that under the reorganization plan?

Mr. ANDREWs. The chances are that will

Mr. VORYS. Maybe State wants to say something at this point, too. Mr. ANDREWS. I will say this, sir. I think the way that come out, when this was set up we did not have our own administrative-bookkeeping-communications personnel and all that sort of thing and we simply paid the embassy for putting on the extra personnel, the extra bookkeepers, maybe transportation.

Mr. VORYS. This is not in our embassy. This is right in the State Department in Washington.

Mr. ANDREWS. Oh, in Washington?

Mr. VORYS. It is roughly 2 to 1 in the State Department on technical assistance, compared to the area desks that are supposed to be the experts who know everything we need to know about that area.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, sir, I would rather not comment on that. Mr. VORYS. Would State wish to comment on that, anybody from the State Department?

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Claxton, can you throw any light on this subject? Mr. VORYS. I bring it up for this area before we leave it, but precisely the same thing will be true in the next area.

STATEMENT OF P. P. CLAXTON, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. CLAXTON. Mr. Gardner may be able to answer this better than I, but as I understand it, I believe it should take fewer people to work on the kind of policy problem to be worked on at the various desks in the State Department, than are necessary to handle these programs for the expenditure of furnishing the acquisition of technicians, the working out of all the many details which Mr. Andrews' organization has to deal with in carrying out the TCA programs.

What you are doing, as I understand the figures, is setting off people working on programs as against people working on policy in the State Department.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would want to say though, Mr. Claxton and Mr. Vorys, the people employed in the State Department genuinely work on programs.

We are going to have all kinds of trouble if you set a little cell over here working on a country over in TCA and ignore the man on the desk or ignore the people in State Department who probably know more about that than we actually do we may know the technical side-and the other point is that-of course somebody has to pay that man.

Maybe the State Department payroll cannot stand it and maybe they should not if the man is going to devote most of his time to TCA problems; in that case he should not be paid by State and the man is over in State rather than in our office.

Apparently, sir, I have missed the question entirely. My people tell me I am missing the point entirely, Mr. Vorys. I am sorry. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mrs. Bolton

Mrs. BOLTON. I had hoped very much that the meeting this morning might be what some of us thought it was going to be, a continuation of Mr. Gardner's testimony and a whole discussion of the Jordan area and that whole thing.

Inasmuch as that has not been possible I am wondering, Mr. Gardner, whether it would be at all possible to give us a very clear statement of the whole situation, there, continuing from where we were the other day?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mrs. Bolton, I am trying my best to proceed as rapidly as possible.

Mrs. BOLTON. I am trying to ease your situation.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. I am trying to get the information which you wish. I have called on Mr. Wood at least 2 or 3 times to have a witness proceed. Then we have some interruption.

Mrs. BOLTON. It is just because of that, Mr. Chiperfield, that I am suggesting we have it on paper inasmuch as we are supposed to close the bill down tomorrow unless we can have a further hearing on the

area.

Mr. GARDNER. You would like a written record, Mrs. Bolton? Mrs. BOLTON. I would like a written statement on what you would have given us on the Jordan business this morning.

Mr. FULTON. What did you say about closing the bill tomorrow morning?

Mrs. BOLTON. We have been told the bill is going to be marked up next week according to what we have been told.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We have a program. We hope to end Mr. Wood's testimony, and then we have some private witnesses again this afternoon and so on.

There has been no set time to close the hearings, but we are trying to proceed as rapidly as possible. Mrs. Bolton is quite correct that we are trying to end this week if we can, the hearings.

Mrs. BOLTON. When we have 2 or 3 things at once, it is difficult. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. The floor leader contacted me yesterday and urged me to get this bill out.

Mr. LECOMPTE. Are we working against a deadline to have it out and on the floor?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We are working among ourselves, and we will do it the way we think it should be done up here and we are not going to take our bill, if I have anything to do with it, until we are satisfied that we have gotten the information, and I do not care how much they jump me downstairs.

Mr. LECOMPTE. I am glad to hear you say that because I think it would be a mistake to go to the floor until Mrs. Bolton and Mr. Vorys and 3 or 4 others have satisfied themselves as to being able to sell the bill to the House, to use a slang expression.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. When I got out of this meeting at 1:30 yesterday, I got a call from the majority leader saying, "Get this bill out."

It's difficult to proceed as rapidly as possible. I'm doing my best. Mrs. BOLTON. It was simply my suggestion that if we are not going to have another hearing, I would like to sit down with Mr. Gardner myself with my subcommittee.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. We will get the facts, Mrs. Bolton, just as rapidly as we can, and we will try to proceed so that we will get all the information that everybody wants.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, in the interests of expediency, that Mr. Andrews be permitted to put something in the record concerning Mr. Vorys' questions?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Vorys, I apologize. I finally got what you are talking about: I am sorry, sir. I know what you are talking about. Mr. WOOD. And Mr. Gardner can put something into the record with respect to Mrs. Bolton's questions on Jordan.

If we can do that, it may save some time. It is just a suggestion. Mr. VORYS. When you are doing that, will you put in an explanation of your program as found on page 136, where there is 1,030 technicians proposed for next year? For the previous years, there is nothing but technicians listed.

Now it is 282 for 1952, 722 for 1953, 1,030 for 1954. It would appear from this summary that there is nothing but technicians; no administrative, no program directors, at all.

When you are putting that in, will you explain about that?

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, sir. That involves this change in the bookkeeping that I spoke of.

(The following information has been supplied for the record:)

COMPARISON OF PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO STATE DEPARTMENT POLITICAL DESKS AND TO TCA COUNTRY BRANCHES

The number of personnel assigned to the State Department political desks cannot properly be compared with the number of personnel assigned to the TCA country branches because their duties and responsibilities are different. The fact that more people are assigned to the TCA country branches than to the