ADJUSTMENTS IN ANNUITIES UNDER THE FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000600100050-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 30, 2006
• Sequence Number: 50
• Publication Date: August 30, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2007/03/06 ? CIA-RDP671300446R000600100050-0
August 30, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
and voting, he would vote "nay." If I
were at liberty to vote, I would vote
"yea." Therefore, I withhold my vote.
The rollcall was concluded.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce
that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BART-
LETT], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.
CHURCH], and the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. MoGRE], are absent on official
business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the Senator
from North Carolina [Mr. Eavni], the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT],
the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE],
the Senator from New York [Mr. KEN-
NEDY], the Senator from Minnesota. [Mr.
MCCARTHY], the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MusKIE], and the Senator from
New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS], are neces-
sarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from North Carolina
[Mr. ERvIN] and the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. McGRE], would each vote
"nay."
On this vote, the Senator from New
York, [Mr. KENNEDY] is paired with the
Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]. If
present and voting, the Senator from
New York would vote "yea," and the
Senator from Virginia would vote "nay."
Mr. CARLSON. I announce that the
Senators from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT and
Mr. DomnsucK], the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. Cuirrrs] , the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DIRKsEN], the Senator from
New York [Mr. JAviTs], the Senator from
California [Mr. KticHEL], the Senator
from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON], the Sen-
ator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] ,
and the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. SALTONSTALL] re necessarily
absent.
If present and voting, the Senators
from Colorado [Mr. ALLorr and Mr.
DommicK], the Senator from Nebraska
[Mr. CURTIS], the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. DIRKSEN] , the Senator from New
York [Mr. JAvirs], the Senator from Cal-
ifornia [Mr. KuonEL1, and the Senator
from South Dakota [Mr. MuNirr] would
each vete "nay."
The pair of the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] has been pre-
viously announced.
The result was announced?yeas Z1,
nays 57, as follows:
[No. 241 Leg.]
YEAS-21
Bible La,usche Neuberger
Burdick ,McGovern Prouty
Cooper McNamara Proxmire
Douglas Metcalf Randolph
Gruening Monroney Williams, Del.
Hart Morse Yarborough
Kennedy, Mass. Nelson Young, Ohio
NAYS-57
Aiken Fong McIntyre
Anderson Harris Miller
Bass Hartke Mondale
Bayh Hayden Montoya
Bennett Hickenlooper Moss
Boggs Hill Murphy
Brewster Holland Pastore
Byrd, W. VB. Hruska Pearson
Cannon Inouye Pell
Carlson Jackson Ribicoff
Case Jordan, N.C. Robertson
Cotton Jordan, Idaho Russell, S.C.
Dodd Long, Mo. Russell, Ga.
F,astland Long, La. Scott
F,11ender Magnuson Simpson
Vannin McClellan Smathers
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Allot t
Bartlett
Byrd, Va.
Church
Clark
Curtis
Dirksen
Dominick
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Tydings
Young, N. flak.
NOT VOTING-22
Ervin
Fulbright
Gore
Javits
Kennedy, N.Y.
Kuchel
Mansfield
McCarthy
McGee
Morton
Mundt
Muskie
Saltonstall
Williams, N.J.
So Mr. MORSE'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the amendment
was rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
move that the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill is
open to amendment. If there be no
amendment to be proposed, the question
is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to a third reading,
and was read the third time.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill
having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered.
?Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall
not require the yeas and nays. I have
no objection to dispensing with the yea's
and nays.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I feel
as does the Senator from Oregon. I see
no purpose in a yea-and-nay vote.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the order for the yeas and nays
is rescinded.
The bill (H.R. 4905) was passed.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate reconsider the vote by
which the bill was passed.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to'.
ADJUSTMEN IN ANNUI ES UN-
DER TH FOREIGN SERVICE
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY
SYSTEM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 614, H.R. 4170.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
4170) to provide for adjustments in an-
nuities under the Foreign Service retire-
ment and disability system.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob-
jection to the request of the Senator from
Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, the
bill came from the House of Representa-
tives and has been approved by the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations. It seeks to
make some changes in Foreign Service
annuities. ,
The Senate has previously had similar
measures before it; in fact, a similar
measure was considered at the end of
the previous session of Congress.
It was felt that changes should be
21423
made in the bill; consequently, action on
the bill was not completed at the previ-
ous session of Congress.
When this bill was reported to the Sen-
ate, the Senator from Delaware [Mr.
WILLIAMS] and the Senator from Ohio
[Mr. LAUSCHE] , who had been much
interested in it, proposed an amendment.
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. WIL-
LIAMS] will present the amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, on behalf of the Senator from
Ohio and myself, I offer an amendment
and ask that it be read.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend-
ment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 3, lines 19 and 20, strike out
"during the period, beginning October 16,
1960, and ending on" and substitute "prior
to".
On page 3, line 23, strike out "during such
period" and substitute "prior to such date".
On page 3, lines 23 and 24, strike out "on
October 16, 1930" and substitute "at the
time of his retirement".
On page 4, beginning with the word "In"
on line 1, strike out through the word "data."
on line 9.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. One
hundred seventy-nine employees of the
Foreign Service retired and at the time
of their retirement did not elect to desig-
nate their wives as survivor beneficiaries.
The bill as reported by the committee
would give these retirees the right to
make the election retroactive in order
to give their Wives survivorship benefits,
but the bill does not require them to pay
back the extra benefits they have col-
lected in the meantime.
I repeat?the bill as reported does
not provide that those who made the
election at this late date would have to
pay back the extra amount of money in
retirement benefits which they had re-
ceived over the period when they had
not designated their wives as bene-
ficiaries.
The purpose of the Lausche-Williams
amendment would still allow retirees to
elect, even at this late date, to designate
their wives as survivor beneficiaries, but
it require them to pay back to the retire-
ment fund the extra amount which they
collected as computed from the date of
retirement over and above the amount
they would have collected had they made
the election at that time.
This is the same amendment that was
included in the bill which was passed by
the Senate last year.
The amendment is offered by myself
and the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
LAUSCHE]. I understand that the com-
mittee is willing accept the amend-
ment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Did the Senator
say that the amendment was offered on
behalf of the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
LAUSCHE] too?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes.
I cite just one example to show the
need for this amendment.
Employee A is currently drawing a
pension of $17,500 a year. Had he desig-
nated his wife as a beneficiary on the
date of retirement his pension would
have been reduced $1,200 per year, or to
$16,300.
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP671300446R000600100050-0
21424 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August 30, 1965
He has been retired for 9 years, which
means that he has collected $10,800 in
extra benefits as the result of not having
designated his wife for survivor benefits.
The bill as reported by the committee
would allow this man now to designate
his wife as his beneficiary by taking the
standard deductions from his current
pension. but the bill would not require
him to pay back to the Federal Treasury
the extra $10,800 which he had collected
in the meantime.
The amendment which the Senator
from Ohio and I are offering would grant
these retlreees another opportunity to
designate their wives as beneficiaries but
in order to do so they would first be re-
quired to make arrangements to pay
back to the retirement fund the entire
amount which they have collected over
and above that amount which they would
have collected had they made this desig-
nation originally.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in the
RECORD the minority views of the Sena-
tor from Ohio [Mr. LaUSCHEl and my-
self, as contained in the committee re-
port.
This report outlines in greater detail
our basic objections to the bill as it was
reported by the committee.
There being no objection, the minor-
ity views were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
MINORITY VIEWS
It is our opinion that this bill should not
be acted upon favorably because. If adopted:
(I) It will grant to certain individuals
rights to which they are not entitled and
which will make these particular individuals
the beneficiaries of grants not given equally
to other persons in the Foreign Service re-
tifernent program.
k 2) Allow these special retirees now to
designate their respective wives as bene-
ficiaries, in the event they are survived by
their wives, without requiring the retirees
to pay back into the Treasury excess amounts
which the fund paid them upon their retire-
ment because they did not select to have
their wives designated as beneficiaries.
(3) Treat unjustly those retirees who did
designate their wives as survivor beneficiaries
and thus suffered a reduction In the retire-
ment pay which they received.
(4) Create further complications and the
need for further adjustments when those
retirees who did designate their wives as
survivor beneficiaries learn of the losses
which they suffered through the reduction in
retirement pay because they did designate
their wives as survivor beneficiaries.
(5) Definitely create an inequality of
treatment of the persons covered by the
fund.
(6) Give encouragement to the adminis-
tration of retirement funds completely in-
consistent with prudence and actuarial
rules.
(7) Require the payment of the obitga-
ttons created by the bill not out of the For-
elan Service retirement fund but out of the
general taxpayers' fund of the Federal Gov-
mament.
Any beneficiary under this bill at the
-rine of retirement from the Foreign Service
had the option of either designating or not
designating a potential surviving spouse as
a beneficiary. The retiree had to decide
tvhether he would prefer getting an increased
retirement pay for himself without designat-
ing his wife as a beneficiary, or a decreased
retirement pay by so designating his spouse.
Many retirees did designate their spouses
as beneficiaries and thus received less money
for themselves during their lifetime. There
were others who exercised the option of
getting more pay for themselves but exclud-
ing their spouses as beneficiaries.
If this bill is adopted it will result in un-
equal treatment as between these two classes
of retirees. The retiree for whom this bill
is being passed will now be allowed to desig-
nate the spouse as a beneficiary but will also
be allowed to keep all of the excess pay that
he received from the fund since his retire-
ment.
However. the Foreign Service worker who,
at the time of retirement, elected to have
his spouse designated as a beneficiary, of
course, received less money. There is no pro-
vision in the bill reimbursing those retirees
for their losses. We are at the opinion that
this latter class, when it learns of the dis-
criminatory treatment to which this bill will
subject them, will justifiably come before the
Congress asking that they be given equal
consideration.
With regard to this Foreign Service retire-
ment plan, we have an exhibition of what
reckless end imprudent disregard for actu-
arial rules does to the stability of a retire-
ment plan that Was originally set up on a
sound basis. The retirement plan of the
Foreign Service was adopted by Congress in
1924. At that time, it provided for employee
contributions equal to 5 percent of salary up
to $9,000. and Government appropriations
necessary to continue the plan in full force,
the aggregate total of Government appro-
priations not to exceed the aggregate total
of officer contributions plus Interest. How-
ever, at various times forces began to operate
for liberalizations of rights and payments.
Some of the liberalizations that the Con-
gress adopted are as follows:
1. In 1999, officers who bad served 30 years
could retire at age GO on a reduced annuity.
2. In 1939, survivor annuities for wives
were first provided.
3. In 1941, the act was changed to permit
retirement with 30 years of service at age 50.
4. In 1946. voluntary retirement at age 50
with 20 years of service was permitted.
5. In 1946, disability retirement was lib-
eralized so that when a participant in the
system becomes disabled, if he has at least
5 years of service, his annuity Is figured on
the basis of a minimum of 20 years of service.
6. Also in 1946. the act was amended to
provide that an annuity would be based on
the officer's 5-year average salary next pre-
ceding retirement, rather than the 10 years
nest preceding retirement.
7. In 1955, it was Changed to the best 5-
year average, rather than the 5 years next
preceding retirement.
R. In 1956, the limitation on years of serv-
ice on which an annuity could be based was
raised from 30 to 35 years. thus allowing '70
percent of the highest 5-year average salary
as an annuity.
9. In 1960, the retirement system was
changed to provide that Foreign Service Staff
personnel, after they have served 10 years in
the Foreign Service, become participants in
the Foreign Service retirement system. Dur-
ing the first 10 years of their service they are
sublect to the Civil Service Retirement Act.
10. In 1960, survivor annuities for children
were also granted.
And, in 1960, the act was amended to
provide for recomputation of annuities of
those who had retired prior to 1966 to allow
those with more than 30 years to be given
added credit for the difference up to 95 years.
A measure of the dollar impact of these
liberalizations on the unfunded liability of
the system is not available. But, partly as a
consequence of these liberalizations, the
fund is now in an indefensible state of in-
stability.
The limitation of 5 percent of salary up to
$9,000 provided by the 1924 act was changed
to $10,000 on February 23, 1931; changed to
$13.500 on August 13, 1946; and removed
altogether on August 5, 1955. The limita-
tion on Government appropriations to the
fund which was a provision from the estab-
lishment of the system in 1924 was removed
on April 24, 1939; Government payments were
to be in the form of annual appropriations
based upon an actuarial determination of the
contribution required. Frequently the Con-
gress did not appropriate all or any part of
the funds requested for this purpose.
Subsequently, on September 8, 1960, the
law was again changed with respect to con-
tributions requiring that the employees and
the U.S. Government each pay 61,- percent
effective July 1, 1961.
Existing now with respect to this retire-
ment program Is the indefensible and un-
believable situation that because of liberali-
zations in rights and other causes it requires
a contribution of 29.7 percent to maintain
the fund. If the contributions were to be
made on an equal basis by employer and em-
ployee, each would have to contribute 14.85
percent of the payroll. The Government now
owes $288 million to the fund; the receipts
of the fund are now equal to 13 percent of
the payroll of the Foreign Service which is
approximately $250 million. It is essential
that this inadequacy of contribution be
solved.
We have been told that a proposal will be
made to continue the payment of the em-
ployees at 61/2 percent of their salaries but
that the general taxpayers will then be re-
quired to contribute 23.2 percent to the
payroll.
Illustrative of the unbelievable situation
that prevails in the fund is the fact that into
it now on the basis of a 13-percent coltribu-
lion (61,i percent by the Government and
percent by the workers) in fiscal year
1962, the fund received $6 million while it
paid out for all purposes $5.5 million. An
actuarial projection of funds, known obliga-
tions, and anticipated receipts reveals that
unless measures are taken to improve the fi-
nancing of the fund it will be depleted by
197'7 and unable to meet future obligations.
Obviously, this situation is bad. It is the
result of failure to recognize when the lib-
eralizations were made what the ultimate
consequences would be. Many times when
new rights were granted to one group, subse-
quently new rights had to be granted to
another in order to equalize the consideration
given.
We believe that Congress should not act
favorably upon this bill because, if adopted
It will treat persons covered by the fund un-
equally. In addition, its adoption would en-
courage the imprudent and actuarially
unsound administration of retirement funds
and would further obligate the general tax-
payers' fund of the Federal Government,
rather than the Foreign Service retirement
fund. We believe that rather than further
adding to the unfunded liability of the For-
eign Service retirement plan Congress should
be considering viable proposals to solve the
deficiency in the fund aggravated by the lib-
eralizations adopted in the past.
FRANK J. LAUSCHE.
JOHN J. WILLIAMS.
KARL E. Mornrr
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President,
there is considerable merit in the bill as
it stands. However, I recognize the dif-
ference of opinion regarding the specific
point that the Senator from Delaware
raises. I realize that what he says has
merit. It is a question of drawing a
proper balance.
We have discussed the amendment.
For my part, I am willing to accept it
and take it to conference. I have assured
the Senator from Delaware that it will
be my purpose to insist upon the amend-
ment in conference.
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
August 30, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 21425
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I thank
the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Dela-
ware [Mr. WILLIAMS] for himself and the
Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAuscnc]
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment. If there
be no further amendment to be proposed,
the question is on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be en-
grossed, and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill (H.R. 4170) was read the third
time and passed.
Mr. SPARK1VIAN. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed.
Mr. SCOTT. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to. .
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS JAMES
MADISON MEMORIAL BUILDING
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 623, Senate Joint Resolution 69.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint
resolution will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A resolution
(S.J. Res. 69) to authorize the Architect
of the Capitol to construct the third
Library of Congress building in square
732 in the District of Columbia, to be
named the "James Madison Memorial
Building" and to contain a Madison Me-
morial Hall, and for other purposes.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob-
jection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the joint resolu-
tion which had been reported from the
Committee on Public Works with amend-
ments on page 3, at the beginning of line
4, to strike out "Architect of the Capitol"
and insert "Administrator of General
Services, in accordance with 41 U.S.C.
252(c) , and"; on page 4, line 4, after the
word "the" to insert "Library of Con-
gress"; in line 6, after the word "the",
to strike out "Architect of the Capitol"
and insert "Administrator"; in line 16,
after the word "the", where it appears
the first time, to strike out "Architect of
the Capitol" and insert "Administrator";
in line 18, after the word "Library", to
insert "and after consultation with the
Architect of the Capitol"; on page 5, line
3, after the word "The", to strike out
"Architect of the Capitol" and insert
"Administrator of General Services"; in
line 9, after the word "to", to strike out
"carry out the purpose of" and insert
"Prepare plans and specifications for the
building under"; and, at the beginning of
line 16, to strike out "carry out the pur-
poses of" and insert "prepare plans and
specifications for the building under";
so as to make the joint resolution read:
Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer-
ica in Congress assembled, That (a) notwith-
standing any other provisions of law, the Ad-
ministrator of General Services, in accord-
mice with 41 U.S.C. 262(c), and under the
direction jointly of the House Office Build-
ing Commission and the Joint Committee
on the Library, is authorized and directed to
construct in square 732 in the District of
Columbia a third Library of Congress fire-
proof building, which shall be known as
the Library of Congress James Madison Me-
morial Building. Such building shall be con-
structed in accordance with plans to be pre-
pared by the Administrator, under the di-
rection jointly of the House Office Building
Commission anti the Joint Committee on the
Library and in consultation .with the Library
of Congress. The design of such building
shall include a Madison Memorial Hall and
shall be in keeping with the prevailing archi-
tecture of the Federal buildings on Capitol
Hill. The Madison Memorial Hall shall be
developed in consultation with the James
Madison Memorial Commission.
(b) In carrying out his authority under
this joint resolution, the Administrator, un-
der the direction jointly of the House Office
Building Commission and the Joint Com-
mittee on the Library, and after consulta-
tion with the Architect of the Capitol is au-
thorized (1) to provide for such equipment,
such connections with the Capitol Power
Plant and other utilities, such access facili-
ties over or under public streets, such changes
in the present Library of Congress buildings,
such changes in or additions to the present
tunnels, and such other appurtenant facili-
ties, as may be necessary, and (2) to do such
landscaping as may be necessary by reason
of the construction authorized by this joint
resolution.
SEC. 2. The Administrator of General Serv-
ices, under the direction Jointly of the House
Office Building Commission and the Joint
Committee on the Library, is authorized to
enter into contracts and to make such other
expenditures, including expenditures for per-
sonal and other services, not to exceed $500,-
000, as may be necessary to prepare plans and
specifications for the building under this
joint resolution.
SEC. 3. The structural and mechanical care
of such building and the care of the sur-
rounding grounds shall be under the Archi-
tect of the Capitol.
SEC. 4. There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated such sums, not to exceed $500,-
000, as may be necessary to prepare plans
and specifications for the builidng under this
joint resolution.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I voted
against reporting Senate Joint Resolu-
tion 69, the measure to authorize the
construction of a third Library building
for the Library of Congress, and to pro-
vide the sum of $500,000 for planning
and designing the James Madison Me-
morial Building. I shall vote against the
passage of the joint resolution today.
I did not vote against the measure be-
cause I thought the Library unneeded, as
the witnesses heard by the Subcommit-
tee on Buildings and Grounds of the
Committee on Public Works, among them
Dr. Quincy Mumford, the Librarian,
made a strong case for an addition to
the Congressional Library.
I voted against reporting the measure,
and shall vote against it in the Senate,
in order to express my view that the
time has come for establishing a com-
prehensive plan for the future develop-
ment of the area adjacent to the Capitol
of the United States.
In past years, there has been a great
deal of criticism of Government build-
ings erected in the area, directed to their
location, cost, and architectural quali-
ties. Among these buildings, I mention
the New Senate Office Building and the
Rayburn Building. There has been crit-
icism also of the destruction of private
residences in the area, which might con-
ceivably have been preserved as con-
tributing to the historical atmosphere of
the area. And, as a member of the Sen-
ate Committee on Public Works, I know
that proposals are being constantly made
for the acquisition of property in the
area for the use of Government agen-
cies or for the future use of Congress,
the Supreme Court, and other Federal
agencies.
At this point, I state that I have my-
self introduced a resolution to acquire
property for the future use of the Su-
preme Court. I point out also that there
is no hindrance to the construction by
private interests of buildings which could
be out of harmony with the architecture
and activities of the area.
Last year, when the Congress author-
ized the construction of the center leg
of the Inner Loop, requiring a tunnel
underneath the Capitol Grounds, I op-
posed its construction both in commit-
tee and on the Senate floor. I did so be-
cause the hearings indicated that the
thorough consideration had not been
given to its cost, its effect upon resi-
dential and business properties not lo-
cated on the Capitol Grounds, and its
effect on the existing Capitol landscape.
Although there was substantial support
for my amendment, it was defeated.
The criticism of the policy?or lack of
policy, to be more accurate?regarding
the construction of buildings on the
Capitol Grounds or adjacent to the Capi-
tol Grounds has been widespread.
The bill as amended by the Senate Pub-
lic Works Committee authorizes not to
exceed $500,000 to prepare plans and
specifications for the building. While
the cost is not known, there are estimates
that it may reach $80 million and some
have informed me that it could reach
$100 million. The cost factor alone indi-
cates that great care ought to be taken
with respect to its location and in the
selection of cualified architects. I as-
sume from the wording of the bill that
the Administrator of the General Serv-
ices Administration would have the au-
thority to make preliminary plans and
specifications and to engage an architect,
and that the authority given the General
Services Administrator in subsection (b)
with respect to changes in the present
Library of Congress buildings, power, and
access facilities, additions to the present
tunnels, landscaping, and other pertinent
facilities, under the $500,000 authoriza-
tion could go so far as to bind an archi-
tect in plans that he thought best for the
building and the area.
I understand further that the House
Office Building Committee makes its rec-
ommendations concerning the use of
lands that have been acquired by the
Government. It is my understanding
that it has not yet approved the use of
square 732 and the construction of the
James Madison Memorial Building.
I have understood that, to this time, at
least, the proposal has been rejected. If
the committee does not recommend
square 732 and this resolution were to be
authorized by Congress, the General
Services Administration would find it
necessary to locate and acquire, with the
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP671300446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
21426 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August 30, 1965
approval of the two Committees on Pub-
lic Works, additional property in the
area.
I speak of the above to emphasize that
I believe the time has come for the estab-
lishment of a commission to plan an or-
derly way for the future needs of the
Congress and other Government agencies
on the lands in the Capitol Hill area now
owned by the Federal Government or
which should be acquired, taking into
consideration cost, location of buildings,
and certainly their design, to preserve the
architectural harmony of the area and
maintain the dominance of the Capitol.
I propose that the Congress should au-
thorize a commission named by the Presi-
dent to undertake this important task.
It should include Members of the House
and Senate and, most important, mem-
bers from private life, great architects
and experts whose plans would insure the
utility and the beauty of the Capitol area.
The PRESIDING O1ee10ER (Mrs.
NEUBERGER in the chair). The Senator
from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Madam President,
I rise to support Senate Joint Resolution
69. I do so because It was My privilege
and responsibility, at a prior session of
Congress, to conduct hearings on a meas-
ure presented by the Senator from Flor-
ida [Mr. HOLLAND]. joined in sponsor-
ship by the Senator from Virginia [Mr.
ROBERTSON], the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. CARLSON], and the Senator from
Utah [Mr. BENNETT].
I congratulate the capable chairman
cf the Subcommittee on Public Build-
ings and Grounds [Mr. YOUNG of Ohio]
for the thoroughness with which the
subject matter has been heard during
the first session of the 89th Congress.
Our distinguished chairman of the full
Committee on Public Works has also
riven this measure his close attention
as have other members of the committee.
It is important that we proceed with
a project of this type, based on the testi-
mony which has been presented in the
subcommittee hearings, and the careful
consideration which has been given to
lhe measure in the full Committee on
Public Works.
I commend the Senator from Florida
!Mr. HOLLAND] and those who have
joined wih him in presenting this meas-
ure to our attention, and for the leader-
;hip which he has provided in this me-
morializing one of the great founders of
this Republic.
I join the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. COOPER], a very able member of the
Committee on Public Works, in reference
In the need for a planned program for
the Greater Capital area. I have legis-
lation which is pending on that subject.
There have been hearings, which I hope
will lead to further committee and con-
gressional action in an orderly fashion.
hut the measure I introduced was never
intended to delay action or deviate from
a program which can come into being at
an early date with the construction of a
taird Library building honoring former
F resident Madison.
I agree with the Senator from Ohio
I Mr. YouNel that we gave due consider-
ation to this subject. I hope. because
of the duties and needs of the Library,
this measure will be passed this after-
noon.
It is particularly appropriate that the
Congress and the American people pay
tribute to James Madison in this fashion.
For as the chief architect of the Bill of
Rights. James Madison made an endur-
ing and immeasurable contribution to
the life of the mind. It is fitting that his
monument in the Capitol will be one of
the great repositories of the works of the
free and creative mind of man.
Mr. CARLSON. Madam President. I
am not a member of the Public Works
Committee. Therefore. I have not had
an opportunity to hear recent testimony
regarding the need for an additional
building, but 2 years ago I was, and I
still am. a member of the committee con-
sidering the matter. Personally I am
convinced that we must have additional
space for the Library to carry on its work.
There may be a division of opinion RS to
where it should be located, but this is
ground we own. It will be accessible to
our present Library. It is not only time
we have the matter before us, but I hope
we can take action on it.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I concur in the re-
marks of the Senator from Kansas on
this matter.
Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, the
land is available. The land is cleared.
The land is immediately across from the
principal building of the Library of Con-
gress. It is planned to be joined by an
underground passage. The land is imit-
able for a building which will have two
or more stories underground with hu-
midity and temperature controls for safe-
keeping of the papers of former Presi-
dents, some of which are not in good
condition, and some of which are in dis-
array.
James Madison was the principal ar-
chitect of the Constitution. He wrote
more, with the possible exception of
Thomas Jefferson, than any other great
scholar we have had about our form of
government. He served later as a Mem-
ber of the Hou-se, then as a member of
the Cabinet, and served as President foe
8 years.
He was a great student and scholar.
Here it is proposed to have a building to
pay tribute to one of our great Presi-
dents?
Mr. ROBERTSON. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. HOLLAND. I do not have the
floor, but I shall be glad to yield in a
moment to the Senator from Virginia.
from whose great Commonwealth Madi-
son came.
T was informed by three outstanding
groups of scholars, mainly university
professors, writers, and the like, of the
difficulties in having access?I do not
mean access as such, but access so they
could readily get the historical papers of
Presidents which are so necessary to be
viewed and studied concerning the early
days of our country so they can be
written about. They told me that the
papers are in disarray. Many papers
have been, at least temporarily, mis-
placed. It is necessary for us to safe-
guard these precious emblems of our
early days in our struggle for a truly free
form of government.
Along with the distinguished Senator
from Kansas [Mr. CARLsoN], the distin-
guished Senator from Utah [Mr. BEN-
NETT], and above all the distinguished
Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], we have been
serving on a commission, by appoint-
ment of an earlier Vice President, for
some 6 years. There has been one
frustration after another.
We had the matter worked out pretty
well when the death of the former dis-
tinguished Speaker of the House, Mr.
Rayburn occurred. He was lending his
office and his influence to using this
piece of land, which is adjoining the
old, first House Office Building for the
additional Library of Congress Building.
Later, we had the strong support of the
present Speaker. It now has the sup-
port of the building committee of the
House of Representatives, the House
Office Building Commission, headed by
the Speaker, and the Joint Committee on
the Library, headed by my distinguished
junior colleague from North Carolina
[Mr. JORDAN].
Mr. RANDOLPH. Who is one of the
cosponsors of the joint resolution.
Mr. HOLLAND. Who is one of the
cosponsors of the joint resolution. We
are anxious to get it underway.
So far as its usefulness is concerned,
It will be added to the Library of Con-
gress, where literally they are being
pushed out of their present buildings by
the accumulation of books and papers,
with only one floor used for this pur-
pose. It is a worthwhile purpose. I
hope the Senate will see fit to pass the
joint resolution.
I thank the Senator from Ohio and the
Senator from West Virginia and other
Senators for the sustenance they have
given me in this effort. Particularly
do I express appreciation of the fact
that the Senator from Ohio has been
able to bring the bill before us at this
time.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I yield to the
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Madam President,
I wish to associate myself with the re-
marks the Senator from Florida has
made, both as to Madison and the need
for this library building.
Physically, Madison was perhaps the
smallest man to serve as President. Men-
tally, he was a giant.
The Senator from Florida is correct
when he says he can justly be praised as
the architect of the Constitution, I be-
lieve he did more than any one man, both
at the Philadelphia Convention and
later, with Hamilton and Jay, in the Fed-
eralist Papers, in that effort. He is the
only man who made stenographic notes
of what went on. Without those notes,
no one could have remembered all that
occurred.
As to the need for the additional
Library of Congress building, no one is
against it. It has been needed for years.
Some reference was made to possibly
using that ground for an additional
House Office Building. I served in the
House. The House with its 435 Members
is not very wieldy. If the numbers are in-
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
September 1, /965APProved Eff4Lefetssse/Wp3iikai5RDIfft3M446R000600100050-0
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CLEVELAND: On
page 27, line 1, insert "(1)" immediately
after "(B)", and after line 3, insert the
following:
(2) Section 741 of such Act is further
amended (A) by rodesignating subsections
"(f)", "(g)", and "(h)" thereof as subsec-
tions "(g)", "(h)", and "(1)", respectively,
and (B) by adding immediately after sub-
section (e) thereof the following new sub,
section:
"(f) Where any person who obtained one
or more loans from a loan fund established
under this part?
"(1) engages in the practice of medicine,
dentistry, or osteopathy in an area in a
State determined by the appropriate State
health authority to have a shortage of and
need for physicians or dentists; and
"(2) the appropriate State health author-
ity certifies to the Secretary of Health.
Education, and Welfare in such form and at
such times as the Secretary may prescribe
that such practice helps to meet the shortage
of and need for physicians or dentists in the
area where the practice occurs; then 10 per
centum of the total of such loans, plus
accrued interest on such amount, which are
unpaid as of the date that such practice
begins, shall be canceled thereafter for each
year of such practice, up to a total of 50 per
centum of such total, plus accrued interest
thereon."
Mr. CLEVELAND (interrupting the
reading) . Madam Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment may be dispensed
with and that it may be printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Hampshire?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Madam Chairman,
the amendment can be explained simply,
as follows: The amendment would per-
mit doctors under certain circumstances,
who go to rural areas where there is a
shortage of doctors, to have up to half
of their student loans excused.
This measure is no stranger to the
committee. I understand it was in the
bill which was reported in 1963.
This proposal has been passed by the
Senate. Senator COTTON and other Sen-
ators have introduced such legislation,
and it has passed the Senate.
I might go a step further. I hope the
distinguished chairman, the gentleman
from Arkansas, will agree to this amend-
ment, because he thinks so highly of it
and thought so highly of his former col-
league and good friend, Senator COTTON,
that he brought this very amendment in
the form of a separate bill to the floor
of the House last year. He did so at my
request and at the request of the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
SPRINGER] who with me had introduced
the bill in the House. To my great dis-
comfort, and I am sure to his discomfort,
and through a misunderstanding the bill
was voted down last year.
Now that the distinguished chairman
is leaving these hallowed halls for the
judiciary, it seems to me only appro-
priate that as one of his final "judicial"
acts here he should agree to this amend-
ment, and this body, should adopt my
amendment out of respect to the chair-
man, We should right the wrong which
occurred last year when this bill got
waylaid in jurisdictional disputes with
our distinguished educators and was
voted down.
We talk a great deal about the needs
of rural America. Across a broad spec-
trum of the legislative panorama we are
moving to help rural America. Here
is a small way in which we can help
rural America, by encouraging young
doctors and dentists to start out their
practice there and, hopefully, stay for
the rest of their practice in rural Amer-
ica. This is a simple matter and easy
to explain and will certainly put the
stamp of congressional approval on the
fact that we would like to encourage
some of these doctors to go out and prac-
tice in rural America where the need is
so obvious and so great. This matter
has been approved by the committee on
two separate occasions. It was ap-
proved once by the Senate, and the Sen-
ate bill, which passed the Senate, has
now been referred to the committee. I
am waiting for the distinguished chair-
man of the committee to stand up and
say he is going to accept this amend-
ment. I feel confident he is going to, so
I will not waste any more of your time.
Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the dis-
tinguished chairman.
Mr. HARRIS. I thank the gentleman
for his very generous and kind remarks.
May I ask him if this is precisely the bill
that the committee reported out during
the last Congress and which was consid-
ered here on the floor of the House and
which lost by a few votes?
Mr. CLEVELAND. This is exactly
the same language.
Mr. HARRIS. I have no objection to
the amendment.
Mr. CLEVELAND. I thank the gen-
tleman. I know he is going to have a
long and illustrious career on the bench,
and I hope some day to have the pleas-
ure of seeing him there.
Mr. SPRINGER. Madam Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. SPRINGER. May I say for the
benefit of all my other colleagues that
at one time last year I had this provi-
sion in the bill and withdrew it in order
to get the bill through the House. May
I say at least two gentlemen I know of
on that side have introduced similar leg-
islation at various times. Those of us
who have lived In rural areas and where
there is a shortage of doctors I know be-
lieve it would be a distinct help in get-
ting doctors there. Therefore I do sup-
port the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Hampshire [Mr. CLEVELAND].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment as amended.
The committee amendment as amend-
ed was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mrs. GRIFFITHS, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
21655
of the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee, having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 3141) to amend the Public
Health Service Act to improve the edu-
cational quality of schools of medicine,
dentistry, and osteopathy, to authorize
grants under that act to such schools for
the awarding of scholarships to needy
students, and to extend expiring provi-
sions of that act for student loans and
for aid in construction of teaching facili-
ties for students in such schools and
schools for other health professions, and
for other purposes pursuant to House
Resolution 535, she reported the bill back
to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
passage of the bill.
The question was taken.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the
roll. ?
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 340, nays 47, not voting 45,
as follows:
[Roll No. 257]
YEAS-340
Adair Callan Ellsworth
Adams Cameron Erlenborn
Addabbo Carey Evans, Colo.
Albert Carter Everett
Anderson, Casey Fallon
Tenn. Celler Farbstein
Andrews, Chamberlain Farnsley
Glenn Chelf Farnum
Andrews, Clark Fascell
N. Dak. Clausen, Fino
Annunzio Don H. Fisher
Arends Cleveland Flood
Ashley Clevenger Flynt
Ashmore Cohelan Fogarty
Aspinall Conable Foley
Ayres Conte Fountain
Baldwin Cooley Fraser
Bandstra Corbett Frelinghuysen
Barrett Cramer Friedel
Battin Culver Fulton, Pa.
Beckworth Cunningham Fulton, Tenn.
Bell Curtin Fuqua
Bennett Curtis Gallagher
Berry Daddario Garmatz
Betts Dague Gathings
Bingham Daniels Gettys
Blatnik Davis, Ga. Giaimo
Boggs Dawson Gibbons
Boland de la Garza Gilbert
Bolling Delaney Gilligan
Bow Dent Gonzalez
Brademas Denton Grabowski
Bray Dickinson Gray
Brooks Diggs Green, Oreg.
Broomfield Donohue Green, Pa.
Brown, Calif. Dorn Greigg
Broyhill, N.C. Dow Grider
Broyhill, Va. Dowdy Griffin
Burke Downing Griffiths
Burleson Dulski Grover
Burton, Calif. Duncan, Oreg. ?Oubser
Burton, Utah Dwyer Gurney
Byrne, Pa. Dyal Hagan, Ga.
Cabell Edmondson Hagen, Calif.
Cahill Edwards, Calif. Haley
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
21656 Approved For ReLlearaggalniCht9E67BOWN00600100050 0
3e73tember 1, 1965
Halieck
Hamilton
Hanley
Hanna
Hansen, Iowa
Hansen, Wash.
Hardy
Harris
Harsha
I iarvey, Ind.
Harvey. Mich.
Hathaway
Hawkins
Hechler
Helstoski
Henderson
Herlong
Hicks
HolifleId
ilolland
Horton
Roamer
Howard
Huot
Iehord
Irwin
Jacobs
Jarman
Jennings
JoeIson
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Okla.
Johnson, Pa.
Jonas
Jones, Ala.
Karsten
Karth
Kastenmeier
Keith
Kelly
Keogh
King, Calif.
King, Utah
Kirwan
Kluczynski
Krebs
Kunkel
Langan
atta
Leggett
Lennon
Long, Md.
Love
McCarthy
McCulloch
McDade
McDowell
McFall
McGrath
McMillan
McVicker
Macdonald
MacGregor
Machen
Mackay
Mackie
Madden
Mahon
Maiillard
Abbitt
Ashbrook
Belcher
Bolton
Brock
Buchanan
Byrnes, Wis.
Callaway
cederberg
Clancy
Colmer Lipscomb
Davis, Wis. McClory
Derwinski Marsh
Dole Martin. Ala.
Duncan. Tenn. Michel
Edwards, Ala. Minshall
Martin, Nebr. Roush
Matsunaga Roybai
May Rumerfeld
Meeds Ryan
Mills
Miniah
Mink
Mize
Moeller
Monagan
Moore
Moorhead
Morgan
Morris
Morrison
Morton
Moss
Multer
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
Natcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nix
O'Brien
O'Hara, ni.
O'Hara, Mich.
O'Konski
Olsen, Mont.
Olson, Minn.
O'Neill, Mass.
Ottinger
Patman
Patten
Pelly
Pepper
Perkins
Philbin
Pickle
Pike
Phalle
Poage
Pool
Powell
Price
Purcell
Quie
Race
Randall
Redlin
Reid, N.Y.
Reifel
Reinecke
Reuss
Rhodes, Ariz.
Satterfield
St Germain
St. Onge
Seheuer
Schmidhatuter
Schneebell
Schwelker
Scott
Secrest
Selden
Semler
Shipley
Shriver
Sickles
Sikes
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Smith, Va.
Springer
Stafford
Staggers
Stalbaum
Stanton
Steed
Stephens
Stratton
Stubblefield
Sullivan
Sweeney
Talcott
Taylor
Teague, Tex.
Tenzer
Thompson. Tex.
Thomson. Wis.
Todd
Trimble
Tnnney
Tuten
Udall
Van Deerlin
Vanik
Vigorito
Vivian
Walker, N. Mex.
Watkins
Watts
Weltner
Whalley
White. Idaho
Rhodes. Ps. White, Tex.
Rivers, Alaska Whitener
Roberts Whitten
Robison Wldnall
Rodin? Wilson.
Rogers, Colo. Charles H.
Rogers. Fla. Wolff
Rogers, Tex. Wright
Ronan Wyatt
Rooney, N.Y. Wydier
Rooney, Pa. Yates
Rosenthal Young
Rostenkowski Younger
Roudebush Zablocki
NAYS-47
Findley
Ford, Gerald R
Goodell
Gross
Hall
Hansen, Idaho
Hutchinson
Jones, Mo.
King. N.Y.
Laird
O'Neal. Ga.
. Passman
Par
Quillen
Reid, Ill.
Skubitz
Smith, Calif.
Teague, Calif.
Tuck
Ott
Waggonner
Walker, Mine.
Wataon
Williams
Wilson. Bob
NOT VOTING--
Abernethy Ford,
Anderson, III William D.
andrews. Halpern
ieorge W. Hays
Haring Hebert
Bates Hungate
Bonner Kee
Clawson, Del Kornegay
Collier Landrum
Conyers Lindsay
Corman Long, La.
Craley McEwen
Devine Martin, Maas.
Dingell Mathias
Reins. Tenn. Matthews
Feighan Miller
45
Morse
Mosher
Pucinskl
Resnick
Rivers, B.C.
Roncalio
Roosevelt
Saylor
Schisler
Thomas
Thompson, NJ.
Toll
Tupper
Ullman
Willis
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Miller with Mr. Hebert.
Mr. Feighan with Mr. Long Of Louisiana.
Mr. Roncallo with Mr. Tupper.
Mr. Toll with Mr. Saylor.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Morse.
Mr. Matthews with Mr. Martin of Massa-
chusetts.
Mr. Dingell with Mr. Anderson of Illinois.
Mr. Kee with Mr. Masher.
Mr. Nornegay with Mr. Collier.
Mr. Hays with Mr. Devine.
Mr. George W. Andrews with Mr. Del
Clawson.
Mr. Schisler with Mr. Halpern.
Mr. Pucinski wth Mr. Roosevelt.
Mr. Corman with Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Baring with Mr. Craley.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Resnick.
Mr. Eying of Tennessee with Mr. Rivers of
South Carolina.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Ullman with Mr. Mathias.
Mr. William D. Ford with Mr. Bates.
Mr. Willis with Mr. McEwen.
Mr. Hungate with Mr. Lindsay.
Mr. MORTON changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
Messrs. HANSEN of Idaho, DOLE, and
sKuBrrz changed their votes from
"yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
A motion to reconsider WaS laid on the
table.
RESIGNATION FROM COMMI
ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
The SPEAKER laid before the House
the following resignation from a com-
mittee:
CoNciarss OF THE UNIT= STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRIMENTATIVES,
Washington. D.C., September 1, 1985.
Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK.
Speaker of the Nouse. Nouse of Representa-
tives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. SPEAKER: It Is with regret that I
submit my resignation as a member of the
Committee on Government Operations, ef-
fective this date.
It has been a privilege and an honor for
me to work with the many fine members of
this committee during the 89th Congress.
My association and participation in the de-
liberations of this group will remain a pleas-
ant and rewarding experience.
Sincerely yours,
DELBERT L. LATTA.
Representative to Congress.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
the resignation will be accepted.
There was no objection.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
who may desire to do so have 5 legislative
days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on the bill just. passed. HR.
3141.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ar-
kansas?
There was no objection.
INTERNATIONAL WHEAT
AGREEMENT
Mr. SISK, from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 561, Rept. No. 945),
which was referred to the House Calen-
dar and ordered to be printed:
H. Rms. 561
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (S.
2294) to amend section 2 of the Interna-
tional Wheat Agreement Act of 1949. After
general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill and shall continue not to exceed one
hour, to be equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Com,mittee on Banking and Currency,
the bill shall be read for amendment under
the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of
the consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Committee shall rise and report the bill
to the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without
Intervening motion except one motion to re-
commit.
UNI1 .E.,L) NATIONS PARTICIPATION
ACI'
Mr. SISK, from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 562, Rept. No. 946),
which was referred to the House Cal-
endar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 562
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (S. 1903) to
amend the United Nations Participation Act,
as amended (63 Stat. 734-736). After gen-
eral debate, which shall be confined to the
bill and shall continue not to exceed one
hour, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
bill shall be read for amendment under the
five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the
consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted, and the previous ques-
tion shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one mo-
tion to recommit..
TO AMEND THE FOR SERVICE
ACT OF 1946, AS AM/ENDED
Mr. SISK, from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 563, Rept. No. 947),
which was referred to the House Calen-
dar and ordered to be printed:
H. RES. 563
Resolved. That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (HR. 6277)
to amend the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as
amended, and for other purposes. After gen-
eral debate, which shall be confined to the
bill and shall continue not to exceed two
hours, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
bill shall be read for amendment under the
five-minute rule. As the conclusion of the
consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted, and the previous ques-
tion sha'l be considered as ordered on the
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
September 1, 19Approve1 Fe6edityMET/R?cEM.D_Pfgegf46R000600100050-0 21657
bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit.
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that my statement printed
on page 21300 of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD be printed in the permanent
RECORD to follow the substitute amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN].
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
/There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 253 I am not recorded. I was
present and voted "yea." I ask unani-
mous consent that the permanent REC-
ORD and Journal be corrected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
STATE TECHNICAL SERVICES ACT
OF 1965
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 548 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. RES. 548
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3420)
to promote economic growth by supporting
State and regional centers to place the find-.
Ings of science usefully in the hands of
American enterprise. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed two hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair-
man and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, the bill shall be read for amendent
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider the substitute amendment
recommended by the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce now in the
bill and such substitute for the purpose of
amendment shall be considered under the
five-minute rule as an original bill. At the
conclusion of such consideration the Com-
mittee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and any member may demand
a separate vote in the House on any of the
amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole to the bill or committee substi-
tute. The previous question shall be con-
sidered as ordered on the bill and amend-
ments thereto to final passage without in-
tervening motion except one motion to re-
commit with or without instructions.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. MARTIN] and pending
that yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 548
provides for consideration of H.R. 3420, a
bill to promote economic growth by sup-
porting State and regional centers to
place the findings of science usefully in
the hands of American enterprise. The
resolution provides an open rule with
2 hours of general debate, making it in
order to consider the committee substi-
tute as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment.
H.R. 3420 would authorize a 3-year
program of matching Federal grants to
the States in a cooperative effort to dis-
seminate the findings of science and
technology throughout American busi-
ness, commerce, and industry. The
purpose of the proposed legislation is to
speed industrial and economic growth
of the States and the country through
an improved application of technical and
scientific knowledge. The achievement
of an improved application of technical
and scientific knowledge under this pro-
gram and with the cooperation of uni-
versities, communities, and industries
will to three objectives: First, strength-
ening the Nation's economy by upgrading
industries through the utilization of ad-
vanced technology, thereby generally
expanding the industrial base; second,
Increasing employment by facilitating
Industrial use of technology and the
manufacturing of new products which
result; and third, enhancing the com-
petitive position of U.S. products in world
markets.
The emphasis of the proposed legisla-
tion is on State participation in technical
services programs, planned locally, and
designed specifically to place findings of
science and technology into the hands
of local businesses and industries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 548.
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr.
Speaker, as the able gentleman from
New York has explained, House Resolu-
tion 548 provides for the consideration
of H.R. 3420 under an open rule with
2 hours of debate. The committee sub-
stitute is made in order as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under
the rule.
' Mr. Speaker, none can quarrel with
the stated purpose of H.R. 3420, to make
available, essentially to small businesses,
commerce, and industry, applied techni-
cal and scientific knowledge. The re-
ported bill authorizes a 3-year program
of matching Federal grants to the States
in a cooperative effort to strengthen our
economy, increase employment, and im-
prove our competitive position in world
markets.
To qualify for Federal matching funds
a State must designate an agency respon-
sible for the administration of its pro-
gram. Such agency must then prepare
a 5-year plan outlining how a technical
services program could be used. The
sum of $25,000 a year in Federal funds
for the first 3 years on a nonmatching
basis can be made available to any State
to assist in the plan preparation. All
qualified institutions of higher learning
are to submit proposals for consideration
of inclusion in the State plan, which is
to outline a budget and assign responsi-
bilities to schools participating. The
Secretary of Commerce must approve
submitted plans, based on reasonable
criteria, and make funds available di-
rectly to the States. He has authortiy
to fix maximum amounts based on pop-
ulation, industrial and economic develop-
ment, and the technical resources and
productive efficiency available within a
State. He has informed the Committee
an Interstate and Foreign Commerce that
the smaller States may receive up to
$150,000 annually and the largest up to
$2 million. None can receive more.
The program has a life of 3 years and
authorizations for fiscal 1966 of $10 mil-
lion, of $20 million for 1967, and of $30
million for 1968.
Additional views are signed by seven
Members. They approve the purpose of
the bill and generally support it but are
worried by the lack of matching funds
in the planning stages of the program.
They fear this may tend to place the
States in a secondary position during-the
planning period.
They also believe that before the pro-
gram moves to the implementation stage
a more careful assessment of State and
regional needs must be made, and pro-
visions made for active participation and
cooperation with Federal programs now
in existence; that is, Commerce Clearing-
house for Scientific and Technical Infor-
mation and the Presidential Commission
on Automation and Economic Progress
among many, along with non-Federal
efforts such as those of MIT and some 28
existing State university programs.
The program must be extended or die
after 3 years, giving Congress a chance
to assess its value and correct any diffi-
culties. Moneys must be appropriated
each year and a ceiling is fixed.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no opposition
to the rule and urge its adoption.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 3420) to promote eco-
nomic growth by supporting State and
regional centers to place the findings of
science usefully in the hands of Ameri-
can enterprise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
Into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the 'Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 3420, with Mr.
RODINO in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Chairman, I am very happy, with
other members of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to
bring this bill, H.R. 3420, to the atten-
tion of the House, and to urge favorable
consideration of it.
In my judgment this is one of the
most important bills that we have
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
21658 Approved For ReltakinfONNAEli-MEB20
brought to the House for its considera-
tion.
Our entire future, as well as our past.
depends on the strength of the economy
and the economic growth of our coun-
try. This bill has for its purpose the
strengthening of our economy, and it
will give us opportunities for greater
economic growth in order that we can
improve under our system of free enter-
prise.
This bill was brought to us from the
Department of Commerce. It is spon-
sored by the administration; it is con-
sidered to be one of the facets of our
program to make a well-rounded ap-
proach to the problems that we are daily
encountering.
The subcommittee held rather exten-
sive hearings. The subcommittee was
chaired by the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. MACDONALD] . The com-
mittee did an excellent job with the
hearings, and in working out the bill in
order to make it the kind of a program
we were told was desired. I think it
would be fair to say that as the bill
came to us it was rather loosely drawn.
if I might use that term.
We had some difficulties in analyzing
it to determine just what would be ac-
complished under it. But after a full
explanation and development during the
course of the hearings of the program
to be implemented, the subcommittee
then proceeded to work out a good, prac-
tical, and sound bill to accomplish the
purposes desired.
I would like to compliment the sub-
committee highly for the very fine work
it has performed and for bringing to
the Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce and thus to the House
what I consider to be a very fine bill.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. MACDONALD] . chair-
man of the subcommittee who labored
along with the other members of that
committee and who did such a magnif-
icent job in presenting here a program
that I believe, after it is fully explained,
will be overwhelmingly accepted by the
House.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
MACDONALD 1 15 minutes.
(Mr. MACDONALD asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MACDONALD. Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 3420 which is now before the House
for consideration is a broad and imagi-
native program which can be used to
promote economic growth and increase
employment throughout the United
States. In addition to these two vital
purposes, the bill has as its third major
goal the improvement of the competitive
position of U.S. products throughout the
world.
As originally introduced, the bill called
for the establishment of technical serv-
ice programs whereby each State would
have been able to organize programs pri-
marily through land grant institutions
and receive matching funds from the
Federal Government without any fixed
limitation as to the time such programs
could run, and without any identified
sum as a maximum authorization on the
part of the Congress. The Subcommit-
tee on Commerce and Finance and later
the full House Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, in public and
executive sessions, took a very close and
careful look at these and the other pro-
visions of the bill as originally sponsored
by the Department of Commerce and the
administration. I believe, and my be-
lief is supported by the report and the
hearings on this bill, that the substitute
amendment which I wholeheartedly en-
dorse here today, is a much more desira-
ble bill than the one which was originally
introduced.
The committee amendment should go
a long way to meet the commendable
purposes of the original bill, but it does
not suffer from the failure to include
limitations and reasonable controls
which was a considerable problem when
we first had the bill under committee
consideration.
Before outlining for you the manner
in which we amended and tightened the
original bill, let me first describe in some
detail just how the State technical serv-
ices programs will operate.
A State which is to participate in the
program will, through its Governor,
designate an agency to administer the
program. This agency may be a com-
ponent of the State government or a
State university, a land-grant college or
any other appropriate agency. This
designated agency will prepare a plan
which will describe the technical and eco-
nomic situation in the particular State.
It will also describe the State's business
and industrial problems and the means
proposed to assist in the solution of such
problems. The designated agency will
prepare an annual technical services pro-
gram which will cover the objectives for
the first year. It will set up a budget
and the responsibilities which are to be
assigned to each qualified institution
which is to participate in the program.
The qualified institutions in turn are de-
fined as those of higher learning with a
program leading to a degree in science,
engineering, or business administration.
These schools must be accredited by a
nationally recognized accrediting agency
or association which will be listed by the
U.S. Commissioner of Education.
A second form of qualified institution
is a State agency or a nonprofit institu-
tion which meets criteria of competence
established by the Secretary of Com-
merce.
Each State will have but one desig-
nated agency. However, as you can see
from the description which I have just
given as to qualified institutions, each
State may have many such institutions.
Every qualified institution within a
State must be Invited to submit a pro-
posal for that State's technical services
program. This does not mean, of course.
that every qualified institution will be a
participant but it does mean that each
such institution can have a voice in the
creation and execution of the State pro-
grams.
When the Governor of a State which
has a program submits the annual pro-
gram and the State's overall plan to the
Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary
13gR0600100050-0
beptember 1, 1965
will be required to review the plan, and
where it is found to comply with the
regulations and criteria set by the Sec-
retary and to otherwise accomplish the
purposes of the act, the plan will be
approved.
Once in operation, there is a wide
variety of technical services which might
be offered by the various institutions par-
ticipating in the program within a par-
ticular State. For example, a program
oriented to the needs and problems of
a specific industry dominant in one State
might offer workshops, seminars, and
demonstrations in order to bring exist-
ing technology to local business and in-
dustry interests for use in plants within
the State. A technology diasemination
and referral center could offer two types
of services: First, technical reports, ab-
stracts, bibliographies, reviews, micro-
film, computer tapes and the like; and
second, referral to sources of scientific
and engineering expertise in the fields of
interest to the local industry. These ex-
amples by no means exhaust the list of
possible technical services that might be
offered in any State program. The range
of services can be as wide as the range
of industrial and technological interests
In this country.
There is also a provision for programs
which may be administered, coordinated,
and executed by two or more States.
Similar procedures for approval of these
Interstate or multistate programs are
provided for.
Contrary to the request and arguments
of the Department of Commerce we have
cut the Federal authorization back from
a 5-year program to a 3-year program.
Section 10 now provides for $10 million
for the first fical year, $20 million for the
second fiscal year, and $30 million for
the third fiscal year. The Department
had sought a fourth and fifth year, each
at a $40 million level.
The Secretary of Commerce will be au-
thorized to make an annual payment to
each designated agency, participating
institution, or person authorized to re-
ceive payments in support of each ap-
proved technical services program.
Maximum amounts will be fixed, and
population, business, commercial, indus-
trial, and economic development, and
productive efficiency, as well as the in-
dividual State's technical resources will
be used as criteria in the formulation of
regulations.
We have been advised by the Depart-
ment and it is part of the report?page
23?that the least populous State may
receive an annual amount up to $150,000,
and that the most populous State will
not receive an annual amount exceeding
$2 million. From the total amounts
available, there is a provision, section 10,
which would allow the Secretary to re-
serve up to 20 percent each year, and
to make payments from this 20 percent
reserve to any designated agency or par-
ticipating institution for technical serv-
ices programs which the Secretary deter-
mines have special merit, or he may
within the limits of this reserve, make
payments to any qualified institution for
additional program which the Secretary
determines are necessary to accomplish
the purposes of this act.
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
September 9, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 22369
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the amendment in disagreement.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment No. 8: Page 7, line 13,
insert the following:
"GENERAL PROVISION
"Sno. 201. The provisions of section 207
of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare Appropriation Act, 1966, Public Law
89-156, shall apply to the items contained
in this chapter."
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. FOGARTY moves that the House recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate numbered 8 and concur therein.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider the vote on
the conference report and on the mo-
tion to recede and concur in the Senate
amendment was laid on the table.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Public Works have until midnight
tomorrow, September 10, to file the re-
port on the bill S. 2300, the omnibus
river and harbor and flood control bill
of 1965.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move
a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Andrews,
George W.
Ashbrook
Baring
Berry
Bolton
Bonner
Cameron
Cederberg
Chelf
Clawson, Del
Craley
Culver
Daddario
Derwinski
Dow
Dulski
Duncan,
Farnsl
Fish
Flo.
41 .1
e0 na e
[Roll No. 270]
Fuqua Pirnie
Gathings Powell
Griffin Purcell
Griffiths Reifel
Hagan, Ga. Resnick
Hanna Rhodes, Ariz.
Hansen, Wash. Roncalio
Harris Roosevelt
Harsha Rumsfeld
Hawkins Ryan
Hebert Saylor
Hungate Schmidhauser
Jones, Mo. Sisk
Kee Smith, Iowa
Kornegay Smith, N.Y.
L ndsay Thomas
Long, Md. Toll
cClory Utt
athias Wilson,
ay Charles H.
urray
ER. On this rollcall 371
answered to their names,
quo u
B a
eedings
th.
mous consent, further
nder the call were dis
OREIGN SERVICE ACT AM ND-
MENTS OF 1965
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 563 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as fol-
lows:
H. RES. 563
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole House- on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6277)
to amend the Foreign Service Act of 1946,
as amended, and for other purposes. After
general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill and shall continue not to exceed
two hours, to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minor-
ity member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule. At the conclu-
sion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question sail be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
(Mr. MADDEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 563 provides an open rule with
2 hours of general debate for considera-
tion of H.R. 6277, a bill to amend the
Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended,
and for other purposes.
The primary objective of H.R. 6277 is
to facilitate the establishment of a sin-
gle personnel system within each of the
three agencies most actively engaged in
foreign affairs?the Department of State,
the U.S. Information Agency, and the
Agency for International Development.
It deliberately excludes all other depart-
ments and agencies. These three agen-
cies conduct their activities under two
personnel systems?one operating under
civil service laws and the other under the
Foreign Service Act. The ground rules
governing appointments, assignments,
promotions, separation, and retirement
are different for each system and, to
some degree, for each of the agencies.
The existence of dual personnel provi-
sions denies the head of each agency the
most effective use of the manpower and
resources the Congress has voted him.
This bill adds neither jobs nor person-
nel to the payroll. More positions and
more people will not solve administrative
difficulties. This bill is based on the
premise that voluntary transfer into the
Foreign Service personnel system of those
now employed under civil service provi-
sions is the most equitable way to effect
a transition from a dual to a single per-
sonnel structure. It also permits the
development of uniform personnel pol-
icies among the three agencies while
leaving to the heads of those agencies
the management control of their own
people. Thus it seeks uniformity with-
out unification. In the sense that the
bill enables officials to meet their en-
larged and complex responsibilities with,
greater efficiency and a maximum use of
their manpower it may be regarded as
an economy measure.
H.R. 6277 also includes a small num-
ber of amendments to the Foreign Serv-
ice Act and to other laws that improve
the conditions of service for those as-
signed overseas.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 563.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, I yield myself as much time as I may
require.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BROY-
HILL ] .
(Mr. 13ROYHILL of Virginia asked and
was given permission to proceed out of
order.)
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Speaker, there is no subject that has
been before the House of Representa-
tives in recent years that has had as
much coverage by the local press as the
current home rule controversy. No sub-
ject has been misrepresented as often
by the local press as that subject. I have
two recent examples here which ap-
peared in the Washington Post. One is
an article of September 8, referring to
the report of the House District Com-
mittee on this subject, wherein we re-
ported that in addition to the Federal
payment the Federal Government spends
$176 million here for various grants and
programs, including highway construc-
tion. Here is what the Washington Post
said, and I quote:
What the report does not point out is
highway construction money, impact school
aid funds, urban renewal, civil defense, and
other funds included in the total are part
of Federal aid programs available to all
qualifying jurisdictions in the country.
In two places in our committee report
we make reference to the fact that some
of that money is similar to that which is
granted in other communities of the
Nation, but there is $72 million worth of
programs peculiar to the District and
which does not apply to similar pro-
grams in other parts of the country. In
fact, in exhibit I in the report, we ac-
tually listed the expenditures, item for
item, in two categories. How could a
newspaper go so far to misrepresent the
facts.
Here is an editorial which appeared in
the Washington Post yesterday where
they said, in part, referring to the Fed-
eral payment:
The fear that this procedure will be an
invitation to the city to tax the Federal
Government is misplaced for two reasons.
First, the Government would appraise its
own property and the assessment would be
entirely in Federal hands.
That is completely a downright lie, be-
cause the bill provides that the Director
of the General Services Administration
shall certify the District of Columbia
Council's assessment of Federal prop-
erty. It says nothing about their mak-
ing any appraisal or assessment. Thus,
the Federal Government would in no
way be appraising its own property nor
would the assessment be entirely in Fed-
eral hands.
This is typical of some of the lies the
Post is putting out to misrepresent this
problem and the pending legislation to
the Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives and to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to insert in
the RECORD at this point a clipping from
the Washington Post on the first matter
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
22370 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE September 9, 1965
to which I referred and an extract from
House report No. 957, which proves the
type of misrepresentation about which
all of us should be concerned:
[From the Washington (D.0 ) Post, Sept.
8. 1965]
In addition to the Federal payment, the
Government spends $176 million here for
Var1011.9 grants and programs including high-
way construction.
What the report does not point out Is that
highway construction money, impact school
aid funds, urban renewal, civil defense and
other funds included In the total are part
of Federal aid programs available to all
qualifying jurisdictions in the country.
The truth, extracted from House re-
port No. 957:
Exhibit No. I lists the expenditures of Fed-
eral funds in the District of Columbia. exclu-
sive of the annual Federal contributions to
the District of Columbia general fund and
to the city's water and sewer funds, for fiscal
years 1964 and 1965. This compilation re-
veals that such expenditures reached a total
in excess of 6176 million in fiscal year 1965;
further, while some of these payments are
similar In nature to grants made to the
various States, more than 672 million of
this total was spent on programs and projects
which are not duplicated in any other juris-
diction. When this amount is added to the
$40 million appropriated in 1965 to the Dis-
trict of Columbia funds mentioned above,
certainly there can be no justification for any
allegation of "neglect" on the part of the
Congress.
EXHIBIT 1. FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN THE DISTRICT or C.o.UMBIA
Expenditures of Federal funds in the District of Columbia, exclusive of Federal payment of
the District of Columbia general fund, fiscal years 1964 and 1965
Ile thousands of dollars1
1. rersiENTe ET rEDLEAL OW/ENNIO:ET To 05 loit THE no.TiticT IT (01.1:51511
Grants for redevelopment and renewal LH FA)
1.-rban renewal demonstration project (1111 FA)
l`dass transportation demonstration project (1111 FA)
Administrative expenses, District or Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board
(Labor)
Civil defense procurement (Doi))
i'ooperative vocational education allotments (HEW)
Advances for disability determinations (HEW)
Grants for services for maternal and child health, (Tippled children, and child welfare
(HEW)
Grants for programs In disease prevention, treatment, and control, mental health
activities, and other public health work MEW)
crant for demonstration project for counnunity mental limit!, centers (NI II)
Grants under Social Security Act for aid to the disabled. dependent children, the
Iliad, and for old-age assistance (HEW)
t ;rants for manpower development and training activities (I [hit')
National Defense Education loans and grants ill EA,
Advances under vocational rehabilitation I/1VMM MEW)
Advances for school lund) and milk programs (Agriculture)
Federal-aid highway program (Commerce)
Aid to federally impacted school districts
,rant to Neighborhood Youth Corps (Labor)
Grants to juvenile delinquency control protram:
To United Planning Organization (II SW)
To model school program Wilke of EsNSIODIS: Opportunity)
1664 actual 1965 estimate
8. 008
is. 189
206 266
41 87
1,806 1,900
85 118
186 137
116 95
681 782
730 1.334
400
10,8181 10.2118
1147 514
124 Pal
621 696
7051 802
30,402 00,110
4, 100
2, 214
Ii. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE EE0E581. OOVERNMENT IN THE DISTRIIT OP COLUMBIA
THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY LOCAL IN NATURE.
325) 1.500
603
NCTA (approximately 75 percent of currently proposed transit system is In ti.e
I )strict of Columbia)
Freedmen's Hospital
nrnin ission of Fine Arts (approximately SO percent of workload relates to the District
of Columbia generated projects)
!?)7:-.tional Capital Housing Authority
N.otional Capital Planning Commission (approximately 25 percent of workload relates
lathe 1)istrict of Columbia generated proleet.$)
St. Flizabeths ilospital (dIfierenee between cost of service to tire Instrict of Columbia
residents said amount reimbursed by the District of ('olutribl:.)
George Washington University Hospital (construction)
College
Inward University
Smithsonian Institution ,
U.S. National Park Service .expended in the I iistrict of Columbia only)
Total
t.rnid total
Mi. 575 104? 150
750 575
X, 890 4,F
45 00
43 37
137 155
3.730 5,510
2.100
4,541 2, 260
15,184 11,653
43, 367 45.001
2,703 2,95(1
76.856 72.162
133.432 I 176,312
1rources: U.S. Bureau of the Budget, U.S. National Park Service, and United Pimining Organization.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, I yield myself such time as I may use.
(Mr. SMITH of California asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
r, as stated by the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. MADDEN], House Resolution
563 provides an open rule with 2 hours
of general debate for the consideration of
H.R. 6277, Foreign Service Act Amend-
inents of 1965.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ex-
planation of the rule by the gentleman
from Indiana. I concur and agree with
the statements the gentleman made and
associate myself with them. In addition,
may I add the following information, Mr.
Speaker.
H.R. 6277 includes certain amend-
ments which will improve conditions of
service for those assigned overseas.
These include continuation of medical
services beyond the date of death or sepa-
ration. A 120-day period of treatment
for employees and their dependents is
permitted from his death or separation.
Annual and sick leave benefits are lib-
eralized, and allowances of up to 50 per-
cent of basic pay are made available
to those serving in areas subject to hostile
activity or physical danger.
Mr. Speaker, this is, as I understand,
an administration request. The com-
mittee informs us that they spent a long
time on the hearings and have added
possibly as many as 75 amendments to
the bill. They openly stated in all hon-
esty and fairness that this is not a per-
fect bill but that they think it is a step
In the right direction to improve the
Foreign Service.
I rather anticipate that many Mem-
bers have received telegrams, as I have,
from various veterans' organizations
which object very seriously to eliminat-
ing the veterans' preference. In consid-
eration of that, the committee members
stated that the veterans' preference is
not omitted so far as those in the service
presently are concerned; that there is a
grandfather clause, and if Members
would like to refer to that, it is set forth
at the bottom of page 16 and the top of
page 17: "except that no officer or em-
ployee shall, without his written consent,
be transferred under this section."
As I understand that, Mr. Speaker,
nobody in the service at the present time
may be required to go overseas or give
up his preference unless he so requests in
writing and desires to do so. It will ap-
ply, however, to those in the future who
are hired. They may all then be sent
overseas.
The committee states that this is a step
in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no objection
to the rule.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of California. I yield to
the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the gen-
tleman I am sure must know that the
reason for this bill is to abolish the Class
Act within the State Department and
practically all the protective provisions
that go with the Class Act. I am sure
the gentleman must know that there will
be pressure exerted to get employees out
of the Class Act and into the Foreign
Service. Knowing some of the workings
of the State Department, and I am sure
the gentleman knows them, too, they are
going to get this move made just as rap-
idly as they can and use all the pressure
they can to accomplish that end.
So that whatever indirect and alleged
protection there is I say to you that it has
little or no meaning.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I
wish to make this observation to those
who are present. This is going to be a
very controversial piece of legislation. I
happen to be proud to be a member of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice. I am proud of the civil service sys-
tem that we have. In my opinion and
in the opinion of members of our com-
mittee on both sides of the aisle, who will
speak later, this is a direct slap at our
civil service system and it can have very
dire consequences.
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
,,1
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600100050.0
Se2itember 9, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 22371
So, Mr. Speaker, we shall bring out our
objections to this legislation as we go
into general debate. I think this legis-
lation is a step backward. I think it is
poor legislation. It certainly must be
poorly drawn with 75 amendments al-
ready put into this bill since it was intro-
duced originally.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentle-
man from Indiana [Mr. ADAIR].
Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Speaker, I would
say in response to what the gentleman
from Nebraska has said about the pos-
sible damage to the civil service system
that if Members will read the record of
the hearings they will find that the
Honorable John Macy of the Civil Serv-
ice Commission was very strongly in
favor of this type of legislation. I think
it is not saying too much to say that
without the very strong support of Mr.
Macy we would not have brought this
legislation to the floor of the House
today.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, may I simply add that no ob-
jections were presented to the rule before
the Committee on Rules. I know of no
objection to the rule itself although there
may be some to some parts of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further re-
quests for time.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION
ACr4 AMENDMEN
Mr. MADII.)EI Mr. S by di-
rection of e Committee, n Ru es I call
up House R,frsolution 562 land ask for its
immediate onsideratio
The Clerk read the r solution,!as fol-
lows:
H. Rms. 562 9
resolution t shall be in Order to move that
Resolved That upon tile adoption of this
the Hou,seiresolve itself nto the Cotrnnittee
of the Whole House on th State of e Union
for the co sideration of he bill (S. 903) to
amend th United Natio is Participa ion Act,
as amend (63 Stat. 734-736). /4er gen-
eral debate, which shall] be confine1 to the
bill and hall continue not to ex eed one
hour, to lie equally divid d and cont olled by
the chai an and ran ing minor' mem-
ber of th Committee or4 Foreign Aaire, the
bill shall ,be read for aijendnient u der the
five-minae rule. At tlie conclusio of the
considerton of the .bill for amen ent, the
Commit shall rise alid report th bill to
the Haus') with such amenthnents las may
have been adopted, and ihe previous diuestion
shall be Onsidered as orqdered on the bill and
amendme4ts thereto to *nal passage vithout
intervenin$ motion except one motio to re-
commit.
(Mr. I4DDEN asked -and was given
permlssloi to revise ind extend lis re-
marks.)
Mr. MA DEN. Mt. Speaker, I ;yield
30 minutes o the ge tleman from Oali-
fornia [Mr. mrrny and pending that
No. 166?
I yield myself such tim
sume.
Mr. Sp House
provides a ape rule wi
eral de e for nsider.
a bill t amend he Unit
ticipat n Act, amend
736).
Secgon 1 of Si 1903 p
sectiah 2 of the; Unite
ipatian Act to provide
a,ssighment of persons
resett the UniteK1 Sta
org ,ns of the United N
org ns commisgions,
the United Nati
nuClear energy
and limitation o
hese change
ad itional pers nnel.
dingnish the crirm
in he present ct.
section 1 is merely g
making assignniients. i
he changes In the
11 t section mil pr
U. . representative t
tins with incr ased
duties to his co league
frig more effective uti
p rsonnel at the U.S.
e as may on- point, at appropria a represent
tive Geneva.
olution 62 Pr sently only ree o
th hour of g bers can be so assign
a on of S. 1913, pe t the Am assador
Nations P five f them. A
d (63 Stat. 7 4- per onnel will
pro sions of t
oposed to rev se I now of no
Nations Part
ns as
r disa
arma
mak
flexibility in
ppointed to r
in the princi
tions and in s
other bodies
re concerned w
ament?con
ent.
no provision
Neither do
tion requirem
hat is involve
ater flexibilit
aw proposed
vide the prin
the United
uthority to
, thereby pro
ization of th
ission to the
C- . MADDE
e the I?revious q
p- e previou
al e SPEA
h the esolutio
of T resolu
th A , siert t.
ol table. 4.
or
ey
ts
In
In
the
pal
a-
ign
at-
top
.N.
The amendment coiita1ned in the sec-
ond section will proilide statutory Au-
tterity for the; existing position o the
11.5. representative o the European
Office of the U.. in Geneva.
(Mr. Speaker I urge the adopticin of
House Resolution 562.;
(Mr. Speaker; I rese4ve the balarice of
n47 time.
Mr. SMITH bf Califernia. Mr. ak-
ell I yield *elf such time as may
consume. ? 1
t(Mr. SMITI of California ask ? and
wgs given pepnlssion to revise a d ex-
teid his rem rks.)
SMITI of CalifOnia. Mr. peak-
er House R solution ;562 does ovide
lot 1 hour of open debtite for the onsid-
er tion of S 1903, ti e United ations
P ticipatiol Act.
r. Speak r, the pu pose of t e bill is
enable thg U.S. Am assador ? obtain
ssignme t of du-
thus p mating
top pe nnel in
rovide tutory
y existi ii g, since
. repreSentative
of the !U.N. at
first qlbjective,
been round to
the a/nount of
ty ptsible by
1903 will
and as-
ry to best
to
mere flexibil ty in the
tie to his m ssion st
be ter utiliza ion of au
th mission:: and to
aulhorlty for the alrea
l9Gp, position of the U
to he European office
Ge eva. .
ith respect to the
stat tory provisions hay
be to confining, limitin
dole ation of responsibil
our mbassai or.
T e chang s proposed
per it him t organize h
sign uties a he deems n
accoxiplish h s mission.
Sii4ce 196 the Unite
main ained a Geneva a
with :the rank of Ambassa
been done w hout a st
now :proposed der the
int*ational o anizati
theye in addition 56 r Iden
The bill authorizes e Presid
ates has
entative
This has
ry basis,
Twenty
e housed
missions.
nt to ap-
the five em-
d. This will
to assig any
tand it, 'o new
o carry ?ut the
I unde
needed
s bill. .
objectio to the
. Mr. peaker,
estion.
questio
ER.
o wa
I. co
?
WaS o
clue/ ?
? ? ? .
ule.
move
ed.
is on
d on the
FO ? ION SERVICE ACT AMEND-
MENTS OF 1965
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 6277) to amend the Foreign
Service Act of 1946, as amended, and for
other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 6277) with Mr.
MOORHEAD in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By'unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as was stated during
the discussion on the rule, this bill is
primarily to set up a single personnel
system within each of the three agen-
cies most actively engaged in foreign af-
fairs?the State Department, U.S. Infor-
mation Agency, and AID. It deliberately
excludes all other departments or agen-
cies.
Before I explain the bill I would like
to say the subcommittee of which I have
the honor to be chairman worked long
and hard on the bill. We had a number
of hearings. We had a large number of
executive markup sessions. The views of
every single person on the subcommittee
were considered.
I want to pay particular tribute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BOLTON],
and the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. KELLY], both of whom I believe at-
tended every single session and who made
a very great number of constructive sug-
gestions.
I also want to pay tribute to the gen-
tleman from Indiana [Mr. Amin.] who
also, I believe, attended every session and
was a tower of strength so far as picking
out the flaws in the language which was
sent up from downtown.
I also want to mention the gentleman
from California [Mr. MAILLIARD], the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
MogsE] who likewise were extremely
helpful and, especially, I would like to
mention the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. THOMSON], former Governor of
that State, whose long administrative
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
22372 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE September 9, 1965
experience led him to make suggestions
which were very helpful to the subcom-
mittee.
On the other side, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Zastocxi I and the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. FAgasTErtil
attended the meetings when they could
because they were both holding hearings
in another subcommittee.
Also I wish to mention the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. MONAGANI. the
gentleman from Alabama I Mr. SELDEN1,
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
FRASER]. and the gentleman from New
York [Mr. ROSENTIV.L]. all of whom
scrutinized each provision and sought to
write a better bill. We had every single
member of the subcommittee at some
time or other make suggestions for im-
provement of the bill.
We added 75 amendments. We re-
wrote the bill. We took the documents
sent from the executive branch as a
working paper. We held hearings, we
listened to employee groups, we tried to
write legislation that would improve the
Foreign Service and at the same time to
the greatest extent possible protect the
interests of the employees.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I have ob-
served, of course at a distance, long
hours and many days that the gentle-
man's subcommittee put in on this mat-
ter. How many days did your subcom-
mittee put in on this matter?
Mr. HAYS. My recollection is that
the subcommittee had eight sessions to
hear witnesses. We spent 6 days in
executive markup. In addition we had
numerous informal meetings with offi-
cers from the executive branch as well
as individual employees and representa-
tives of interested groups such as em-
ployees unions and veterans groups.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. And in addi-
tion to that I would rather imagine the
members of the subcommittee, the chair-
man and others have spent almost end-
less hours in doing their homework.
Mr. HAYS. I would say to the gentle-
man that I hope we have done our home-
work. Each of us has spent a good deal
of time on this. Again I would remind
my colleague that all of us had numerous
meetings with employee groups and their
officials in conferences which were not
regularly called or scheduled sessions.
There was never a time that they called
the office of any of us and asked to talk
to us about the bill but they were re-
ceived and they talked to us.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I am taking
this time and doing so a little bit hesi-
tantly, but I do think it serves a public
interest that not only the Congress
should know but that the American pub-
lic should know how many hours and
how many days and how much hard
work goes into the preparation of a meas-
ure of this nature. I thank the gentle-
man and commend him and compliment
him.
Mr. HAYS. I appreciate the gentle-
man's remarks and thank him for his
expression of appreciation. I am glad
the gentleman brought this matter out.
I would like to say to my colleagues
that when this bill came up from the
EXecutive, it included a mandatory pro-
posal calling for the transfer of civil
service employees within a period of 3
years into the Foreign Service category.
What precedent was there for this pro-
posal? Every single commission that has
studied the problem of our Foreign Serv-
ice personnel has recommended an amal-
gamation of the civil service personnel
with the Foreign Service starting with
the Hoover Commission in 1949 on which
our late distinguished colleague and my
late good friend, the gentleman from
Ohio. Mr. Brown, served. I believe the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. FRE-
LINGIIITYSENI. a member of our commit-
tee, was on the staff at that time. Let me
read a brief extract from the report of
the task force of the Hoover Commission:
The consolidation (of the Foreign Service
and the Department service) should be grad-
ual in order not to weaken the morale and
the present high quality of the Foreign Serv-
ice or discard too abruptly many civil service
employees of long service. It should how-
ever he mandatory and progressive, under
legislative enactments which cannot be
avoided by unsympathetic administration
and which contemplates a complete consoli-
dation within about 5 years.
The Rowe-Ramspeck-DeCourcy Com-
mittee in 1950 made a similar recommen-
dation. This may be found on page 10
of the committee report.
The Herter Committee in 1962 headed
by a former distinguished Member of
the House and a former Secretary of
State recommended the same thing.
But did the committee go that far and
that fast? No, it did not.
The committee decided that it ought
to lean over backward to make this ad-
justment as easily as passible. We wrote
into the bill language which says that
nobody employed under civil service in
each of the three agencies may transfer
only if he wants to transfer. He can
stay on beyond the Foreign Service re-
tirement age of 60 years to age 70 which
is the civil service retirement age. If he
does not transfer, he retains all benefits
that he has.
The provisions that we have written
into the bill will take a lot longer to
accompish what the executive wants to
accomplish and what the committee
unanimously thinks must be accom-
plished. But we thought we would go
all the way in protecting these people
from what the gentleman from Iowa
calls pressure.
Let me talk a bit about this pressure.
'the gentleman says there is going to be
pressure exerted on these people to force
them to transfer. I would say to you,
ladies and gentlemen, I do not know of
a single department in the Government
that has more thorough legislative over-
sight than the Department of State. My
subcommittee is looking down its neck
all the time. I only need to hear one?
just one attempt to pressure somebody?
and the Department will regret it. I do
not think the Department will try it.
This will be voluntary on the part of
present employees. New employees will
come in under the new ground rules.
They will now know that when they go
into the Foreign Service category. They
know that they are subject to selection
out. What is selection out?
In the Committee on Rules, the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Virginia with
his inimitable wit and wisdom said:
That is another word for firing; is it not?
I admitted that is what it is.
But how can anyone be selected out
under the present Foreign Service sys-
tem? He must be in the lowest 10 per-
cent of his class in any 3 years that he is
in that class before he is even eligible
to be selected out. But I wish to point
out to the Members?and I wish the
Chamber were full of Members?there
Is no department that gets kicked
around more than does the State De-
partment, but when we try to do some-
thing to make it a better Department,
then we are met with many objections.
We are told, "You are attacking the civil
service". We are not doing any such
thing.
In fact, one of the witnesses before the
committee told me what a terrible thing
we were doing and how he would pre-
vent it. I said, "Really, my friend, if
you have so much faith in the civil serv-
ice, and you throw as much weight
around as you think you do, why don't
you get one of your friends to introduce
a bill applying the civil service to the
office of every Congressman?"
If it is good for every agency in the
world, it ought to be good for congres-
sional offices.
I am not an enemy of the civil serv-
ice. I have voted for every single raise
in pay they have asked for since I have
been here. I have voted for improve-
ments in it. But the State Department
Foreign Service is, or should be, an elite
service. This little group of people are
the ones who make the decisions. They
decide whether or not we will put that
$50 billion a year war machine over at
the Pentagon into high gear, or whether
we will let it stand there with its motor
idle.
The taxpayers of the United States?
yes, the citizens of the United States?
the boys and girls of the United States?
deserve the best State Department we
can get, because, in effect, it is deciding
their future.
There has been no person in the Con-
gress who has been more critical of the
Department than I have. But I have
tried to be constructive in my criticism,
and when I criticize, I try to point out
an alternative way to do the job better.
I do not claim that the bill is perfect.
The Foreign Service Act of 1946, which
was worked on by Mr. Richards of South
Carolina, and my colleague from Ohio,
Mr. Vorys, was not perfect. They d'd
not claim it was. But it has gone alon,;
and we are trying to improve it. That
is what we are attempting to do.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. I yield to the gentle-
woman from New York.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I feel
that I must compliment our chairman
for the magnificent job which he has
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
RECORD ? HOUSE 22373
September 9, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL
done in endeavoring to perfect our sys-
tem of Foreign Service and I shall con-
tinue to believe that the amendments in
this bill will strengthen our Foreign Serv-
ice and not impair the civil service.
I should like to ask a question of the
gentleman from Ohio. Does the gentle-
man not think that the bill would pro-
tect those individuals who transfer from
the civil service to the Foreign Service
system?
Mr. HAYS. I do, because there are
several conditions written into the law;
first, they do not have to transfer unless
they want to; second, even if they trans-
fer, they cannot be sent overseas unless
they indicate that they are willing to go
overseas.
I leave it to the gentlewoman to deter-
mine whether we have not leaned over
backward until we almost touch the
ground with our heads to protect the
people who are in civil service. We
have given them a number of options.
These are spelled out on page 12 of the
report. If they do not elect to transfer,
they can stay where they are.
Mrs. KELLY. As to those who are
presently in the Foreign Service but un-
der civil service regulations, is it not true
that he will not lose his veteran's
preference?
Mr. HAYS. He will not lose his vet-
eran's preference under any circum-
stances unless he elects to transfer to the
Foreign Service systein. But if he really
believes he has to have veteran's prefer-
ence to maintain his position, my advice
to him would be not to transfer, and he
does not have to.
Mrs. KELLY. Is it not true, also, those
who are presently in the civil service and
do not transfer to the Foreign Service
do not lose any right whatsoever as far
as their appeals or retirements go, if they
so choose?
Mr. HAYS. They maintain all the
rights they presently have up to the age
of 70, the mandatory retirement age un-
less he retires earlier.
Mrs. KELLY. Is it not true, also, that
the Foreign Service has always been a
merit system just as the civil service is?
Mr. HAYS. I think so. I think selec-
tion out is a merit system. Yes.
Mrs. KELLY. And no one will be de-
nied a promotion if they do not select
it?
Mr. HAYS. Absolutely and categori-
cally, no one will be denied a promotion.
Mrs. KELLY. I thank the gentleman.
(Mrs. KELT y asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. I yield to the gentleman
from New Mexico.
Mr. MORRIS. I want to say to my
good friend, the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. HAys], that I am cer-
tainly in agreement with what he is
trying to do. He has performed a great
service to the country, I think.
There is a question I would like to ask
concerning this veteran's preference. I
had a telephone call the other day' from
the adjutant of the DAV in New Mexi-
co. He seemed to feel?and I think it was
erroneous, but it was his feeling?that
this bill might be the beginning and a
precedent-setting piece of legislation for
the breakdown of the veteran's prefer-
ence system.
Mr. HAYS. I can say to the gentle-
man that it is no such thing. There is
no such intention, and at the proper time
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
ADAIR], I have been informed, will offer
an amendment which says that it is the
sense of Congress that the veteran's
preference system shall be maintained
and this sets no precedent in any way,
shape, or form.
Mr. MORRIS. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. I yield to the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I think the an-
swers given by the gentleman from Ohio
to the questions submitted by the dis-
tinguished gentlewoman from New York
and the gentleman from New Mexico
have answered most of the substantive
questions I had in mind concerning this
legislation. However, for the RECORD I
would like to emphasize one point, if
I have understood the gentleman cor-
rectly.
The point is that under this legisla-
tion no veteran's preference or veteran's
right is extinguished or reduced in any
way for any employees of the State De-
partment now in the service of the State
Department. Is that correct?
Mr. HAYS. Categorically, the answer
to the gentleman's question is that none
is reduced in any way whatsoever, to
any employee as of today or as of the
effective date of this legislation, if it be
enacted and signed into law.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Following up
that thought just a step further, if I
understand the effect of the amendment
of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
ADAIR], which is to be submitted, the
effect will be to enlarge the veteran's
preference or extend it into an area of
employment in the State Department
where it does not now exist. Is that
correct?
Mr. HAYS. Under the language of
the gentleman's amendment it could
have that effect.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to join
the gentlewoman from New York in what
she had to say concerning the activities
of the chairman of this subcommittee,
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HAYS].
He was patient and tolerant and invited
comment and discussion to the very full-
est possible extent. I should say to
members of the committee that he did
everything possible to try to permit us
to bring before this committee and this
House today a good and proper bill.
Mr. Chairman, it is usual, when a com-
mittee has made numerous amendments
to a bill, to bring to the House a clean
bill. In reporting out this measure the
Committee on Foreign Affairs chose not
to do that. The reason is simple. As it
was introduced, H.R. 6277 drew criticisms
from a number of sources. In the course
of our deliberations we took into account
many of these criticisms. We wrote in
some new provisions and we amended or
deleted provisions in the original bill. I
know that many Members of Congress
have received communications critical of
some part or parts of the original bill.
In order that Members may readily iden-
tify the changes made by the committee
we reported the original bill with amend-
ments.
There are 75 amendments. Admit-
tedly, a number of them are technical,
clerical, or conforming amendments.
But there are also very basic substantive
amendments.
The underlying purpose of many of the
amendments is to enable the three prin-
cipal foreign affairs agencies?State,
USIA, and AID?to operate under a sin-
gle personnel system rather than, as at
present, under a dual personnel system.
Let me state that the concept of a single
personnel system represents the judg-
ment of numerous official and unofficial
bodies that have studied the personnel
problems of our overseas agencies. Our
report highlights some of the principal
studies on this subject starting with the
Hoover Commission in 1949. That body,
under the able direction of our former
President, included Members of both
Houses of Congress as well as distin-
guished private citizens. One Member
from this body who served with great dis-
tinction was the late Clarence Brown, of
Ohio.
The Commission operated through a
series of task forces, one of which con-
cerned itself with foreign affairs. On
the staff of the latter was a man who is
now a most respected Member of this
body, the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. FRELINGIIUYSEN].
Quite clearly, what we are recom-
mending in this bill is not a unique con-
cept. The only unique feature is that
this is the first legislative effort to give
effect to the numerous recommendations
on the matter of a single personnel
system.
Two provisions in the original bill
were the subject of concern and criti-
cism. I want to discuss these briefly and
make clear to the House what the com-
mittee did in each instance.
Under the original bill it would have
been possible for the President to au-
thorize the transfer into appropriate
categories and classes of the Foreign
Service such civil service personnel "as
he may designate of other Government
agencies who are engaged in foreign af-
fairs functions." It is difficult these
days to find some part of some agency
that is not engaged in a foreign affairs
function. We heard from agency offi-
cials and from other congressional com-
mittees, all of whom expressed an under-
standable concern about the implica-
tions of the language. We had some
letters from workers in munition depots
who feared they might wind up in the
Foreign Service, apparently on the as-
sumption that at least some of the muni-
tions they handled went abroad. I
think I can assert with certainty that no
one contemplated the extension of the
Foreign Service personnel system
throughout the Government. Section
29 of the amended bill specifically limits
its application to the three major for-
eign affairs agencies named in the bill?
State, AID, and USIA.
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
22374 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE September 9, 1965
Civil Service employees and veterans
groups saw in the transfer from the civil
service personnel system to the Foreign
Service personnel system a loss of the
rights they enjoyed under civil service
laws and veterans' preference laws.
Their concern was understandable. The
Foreign Service system is not wholly
compatible with either civil service or
with veterans' preference . It relies on
selection boards that Identify annually
the top people in a particular class who
should be promoted as well as the most
marginal who should be selected out.
Civil service people who have a more
guaranteed tenure find the annual eval-
uation process very disturbing.
The committee deliberated long and
hard to find an equitable approach that
would take into account the interests
of those covered by civil service and vet-
erans' preference and at the same time
that would permit a start toward a single
personnel system operated under the
provisions of the Foreign Service Act.
I think we have achieved such an ap-
proach in this bill. Simply stated, pres-
ent civil service employees may elect to
transfer to the Foreign Service system.
In making such an election, they will
weigh the advantages and the disadvan-
tages of a transfer including a consider-
ation of their civil service status and
any privileges they may enjoy under vet-
erans' preference. The choice is theirs.
I call the attention of the House to page
12 of our repolt in which we set forth
the safeguards and incentives to civil
service personnel that we have written
into this bill. If an individual elects to
transfer to the Foreign Service system,
any rights he may have under civil serv-
ice laws and veterans' preference will be
inoperative so long as he is in that sys-
tem. If he later moves to an agency
whose employees come under civil serv-
ice, both his civil service rights and vet-
erans' preference advantages will again
be available to him.
After the enactment of this bill all
new appointments will be made under
the provisions of the Foreign Service Act
as amended.
For many years I have supported vet-
erans preference legislation. I firmly be-
lieve in it. For that reason I can readily
understand the concern of veterans that
this appears to be a departure from a
well-established congressional policy. I
gave considerable thought to my own
position on this provision of the bill be-
fore deciding to support it.
By law individuals appointed by the
President with the advice and consent
of the Senate do not have veterans
preference. This is the case of all For-
eign Service officers. Linder this bill
foreign affairs officers in classes 1, 2,
and 3 would also be Presidential ap-
pointees subject to Senate confirmation.
While foreign affairs officers is classes 4
through 7 would not be subject to Sen-
ate confirmation, they would be compet-
ing with Foreign Service officers, many
of whom are veterans but do not enjoy
veterans preference. This in itself would
create a serious morale problem. Fur-
then the whole emphasis of this bill is
to develop a personnel system where the
personal qualifications of the individual
wW be the determining factor in ap-
pointments, advancement, and retention.
The question may well be asked: Is
this a precedent for further encroach-
ments on veterans preference? My an-
swer is loud, clear, and unequivocal?no,
it is not. We are confronted here with
a situation that is unique, one not faced
by other agencies of Government that
have a" single personnel system in which
civil service provisions and veterans pref-
erence provisions operate. I see no jus-
tification for any changes In these pro-
visions. I would strenuously oppose, as
I am certain most Members of this House
would, any attempt to modify or weaken
these provisions,
It is not always understood that the
Foreign Service is as much a career sys-
tem as is the civil service system. It has
been so since 1924. In 1946 when the
basic Foreign Service Act was written,
the members of our committee from both
parties were insistent that it be a merit
system. In the bill now before the House
we were anxious to continue and to
strengthen the merit principle. We took
care to insert in section 13 of the bill a
provision that all future appointees as
foreign affairs officers and reserve officers
must qualify by an examination process.
We cannot spell out in legislation the pre-
cise subjects upon which an individual is
to be examined; that will depend upon
his special field as well as his level of
competence within the field. But we do
Insist that there be examinations that
are meaningful and objective and that
appointments not be made on the basis of
political patronage.
Mr. Chairman, it should be understood
by the House that the issues presented in
this bill do not turn on any partisan ap-
proach. They are unrelated to any issues
of foreign policy. They are concerned
with the machinery by which policy may
be developed and implemented. This bill
came out of the subcommittee unani-
mously. It received the overwhelming
vote of members of both parties in the
full committee.
If the principle of a single personnel
system, so well established in other agen-
cies of Government., is a sound one, then
It is no less valid for the foreign affairs
agencies. That is what this bill seeks to
accomplish. In our efforts to effectuate
a single personnel system, we have been
unusually solicitous of those employees
who have rendered, and are rendering, a
high level of performance in the dis-
charge of their duties. We want them to
stay in Government service. We have
taken every precaution to protect their
personal interests. We have weighed the
value of their service to our Government
against the larger national requirements
that would permit the more effective
utilization of their talents. It is my be-
lief that any organizational pattern is
worth little or nothing if it is indifferent
to individuals. That concern was upper-
most in the minds of the committee dur-
ing the drafting of this bill. I think we
have succeeded. I urge the House to
adopt this bill.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CORBETT. Some of us are now
quite confused as to what the gentle-
man's amendment regarding veterans'
preference will be. The gentleman from
Ohio indicated it not only would be ap-
plicable in all phases, but the result of
the gentleman's amendment might be
extended into fields where it is not now
utilized.
Mr. ADAIR. The effect of the amend-
ment I propose to offer would be to say
that as a policy, wherever it is possible.
not violating other rules and laws which
will be established if this Wl becomes
law, but to the extent practicable, veter-
ans' preference shall be taken into ac-
count. That would involve, as I said in
my prior remarks, a weighing of very
many factors, a weighing of the fact
there are now in the Foreign Service, peo-
ple who are veterans, but who are not
benefiting by any veterans' preference.
If we were to give some people in the
Foreign Service veterans' preference
while at the same time it is not avail-
able to others, that would certainly
constitute a serious morale problem. It
Is my opinion that the effect of my
amendment would simply be to say to
the extent practicable in the employment
of officers and employees of the Foreign
Service they take into account the fact
this applicant or that applicant is a vet-
eran. To that extent I would agree with
what the gentleman from Ohio said, it
does nothing about an extension of vet-
erans' preference.
Mr. CORBETT. The gentleman also
stated he was very anxious to preserve
and protect the rights of everybody he
could.
Mr. ADAIR. Every individual in the
Government service according to his
merits. That is not only my point of
view. but I think it is the point of view
of all members of the subcommittee.
Mr. CORBETT. How does stripping
20.000 people of their civil service rights
help achieve that objective?
Mr. ADAIR. I will say to the gentle-
man, as has been said earlier this after-
noon, no one is stripped of any rights,
who is now in the civil service, unless he
himself elects to forgo those rights.
If he says, "Yes, I see an advantage
in my transfer to another category as a
Foreign Service officer," he does so with
the full knowledge that he is giving up
those rights. He makes that decision
himself. No one makes it for him. No
one forces him to do it. Should after
a period of years he revert, as I said, to
a position in which the civil service
and/or veterans preference rights do ap-
ply he would again be clothed with that
protection. This is a matter for people
now covered by civil service to decide en-
tirely at their own option. Of course,
people coming in hereafter will be ex-
pected to come in under the new ground
rules that we are trying to establish.
Mr. CORBETa. They will not be un-
der the civil service in any case?
Mr. ADAIR. They will be under the
new Foreign Service which we are, as I
say, trying to establish as a system some-
what parallel and in many respects, but
not all, copied after the civil service sys-
tem. I will say further to the gentleman
that when John Macy was before our
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
September 9, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
committee, and I said this earlier this
afternoon, he gave a very strong state-
ment which the Members can find in
the record of the hearings in support of
this type of thing. He indicated very
clearly, he thinks for the benefit of our
Government, it is highly desirable and
for the benefit of us as individual citizens,
it is highly desirable for us to establish
a Foreign Service system more separate
and distinct than the one we now have.
Mr. CORBETT. I greatly admire the
Civil Service Commissioner but he often
does serve under one or two hats and
not always the Civil Service Commission.
But here when you do hire these new
people and they go into the Foreign
Service instead of under civil service,
then they come up against the matter of
appeals if they are removed or are not
promoted. Their only right of appeal is
within their own department to their
own superiors; is it not?
Mr. ADAIR. They have all the rights
and protections that are available under
the Foreign Service Act.
Mr. CORBETT. That is possibly to
people in the same level who have orig-
inally graded them or condemned them
for some act. In other words, there is
no outside review of the facts of their
cases.
Mr. ADAIR. In that respect I would
say to the gentleman, we wrote a special
provision in this bill, section 30, that if
a man thinks he has had unfair or ad-
verse reports as to the discharge of his
duty or as to his conduct, he can request
the chief of mission to make a direct
report upon him if there is possibly a
bad report or report with which he does
not agree.
Mr. CORBETT. But to no outside
agency. He cannot go to any court or
the Civil Service Commission or anything
else.
Mr. ADAIR. Certainly he should be
controlled. He has the same safeguards
and he is subject to the same restric-
tions as people now and hereafter in the
- Foreign Service. I think what the gen-
tleman is saying is exactly what we are
trying to say. We are attempting to
build a separate and distinct Foreign
Service.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HAYS. I would like to point out
to the gentleman, if the gentleman will
yield, that selection out system is a merit
system. Nobody can ever be touched
under this system as long as he stays not
in the top one-third, not in the top two-
thirds as you have to be to stay in col-
lege these days?but in the top 90 per-
cent. Not only that, the person has to
be in the bottom 10 percent three times
while he is in the same class. So all the
person has to do is really be a little com-
petitive and be on the ball. I do not
think we need to worry about the indi-
vidual here. In the selection out cases,
that have come to my notice since I have
been chairman of this committee?and
you know people who are going to lose
their jobs are not very reluctant to come
to a Member of the Congress?I have
only had two cases brought to my atten-
tion by other Members. We wrote Ian-
guage in the bill that Mr. Macy, who is
head of the Civil Service Commission,
shall be on this Board of the Foreign
Service which hears appeals on separa-
tion for cause. I really think that my
friend, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania is worrying unnecessarily. We are
worrying a little bit about. the Govern-
ment getting the best possible service and
consistent with such protection as is
needed.
Mr. CORBETT. I have not in any
way questioned the sincerity of the effort
that is being made here. It could pos-
sibly be that the trouble comes from the
fact that the bill was not referred to the
Civil Service Committee, which has had
a great deal of experience in this type of
thing. I believe that jurisdiction was
wrongly placed in this matter, and we
on the Civil Service Committee--
Mr. HAYS. May I say to the gentle-
man that the Foreign Affairs Committee
has always handled Foreign Service per-
sonnel questions.
Mr. CORBETT. And yet we are sup-
posed to handle matters ,pertaining to
employees.
Mr. HAYS. It works both ways.
Mr. CORBETT. And probably
wrongly.
Mr. ADAIR. In furtherance of what
the gentleman from Ohio said, it is my
recollection?and I am sure reference is
made to this point in the report?that in
the selection-out process in recent years
less than 2 percent of the Foreign Service
officers to which it is currently applicable
have been selected out. Yet we seek to
build a better Foreign Service. How
many of us in this Chamber have not been
critical of the State Department and our
Foreign Service? If we have been, then
by this bill, let us give them the machin-
ery by which they can correct the
situation.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman
from Nebraska.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Getting back to
the question of veterans' preference, it
is a well known fact that the five major
veterans' groups oppose this legislation.
I hear remarks being made in the well by
those favoring this bill that indicates to
me that the speakers are saying in fact
that the veterans organizations do not
know what they are talking about, but I
for one think they do.
Mr. ADAIR. I refuse to yield fur-
ther at that point. I will say to the
gentleman that there has been no state-
ment to that effect. There has been
no implication to that effect.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There has been
a lot of objection by the veterans' groups.
I believe that every Member of this body
has received communications from them.
I have heard via the grapevine before this
bill was called up that the committee is
a little worried about the opposition of
our veterans and so they are going to
offer an amendment. I do not know
what number that amendment will be?
No. 75 or No. 76?but it will be a sort of
22375
sense-of-Congress resolution. Is that
not the language to be used? I believe
that is one of the phrases referred to by
the sponsors of this bill.
Mr. ADAIR. The gentleman did not
need to hear by the grapevine that we
had in mind offering an amendment. We
have been talking about it this afternoon,
and I said that I had one prepared which
would direct that veterans' preference be
considered wherever practicable.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman
knows that that will not have any force
or effect. It will not mean anything.
Mr. ADAIR. I disagree with the gen-
tleman. If it becomes law, it will have
the full force and effect of law. The
veterans' groups, or their leaders, do
know what is going on.
Not very many days ago, I personally
invited them to my office to sit down and
talk and discuss this question, so that
' they might be fully advised, and the
amendment which I have prepared is an
outgrowth of that meeting. I am not
saying to the gentleman that my amend-
ment would go as far as the leaders of the
veterans' organizations feel that we
should go. I do say to the gentleman
that it goes as far as we can, consistent
with the requirements of the Foreign
Service.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman
from Nebraska.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We passed that
type of amendment in this body and in
the other body before and, in my opinion,
it has had no force and effect. I think we
are fooling our veterans when we adopt
such an amendment and give them the
feeling that they will not be injured.
But to get back to another point--
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. I should like to make a
statement at that point. A committee
was appointed, headed by a former com-
mander of the American Legion and in-
cluding four departmental commanders.
They were asked to serve voluntarily.
They were given top security clearance.
They were asked to go through the State
Department from top to bottom and
make recommendations. I refer to those
five former officers of the American Le-
gion. I should like to read what they
said. They said:
The Department should increase its ef-
forts to attract and bring into the Foreign
Service junior officers of high caliber and
potential.
The Department should intensify its
efforts to weed out medicore personnel
by increasing materially the number se-
lected out.
Then they go on to say that the selec-
tion boards should be authorized to re-
view even more personnel than they are.
This is a group of five former national
commanders. I got a telegram from a
gentleman recently saying that 5 million
veterans are against this bill. I called
him up and said, "Let us not kid each
other-4,999,999 of them do not know
this bill is coming up."
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
Approved For Release 2007/03/06 : CIA-RDP67600446R000600100050-0
22376 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE September 9, 1965
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I will yield briefly.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I understand
this, an option will be given to these peo-
ple. They can go into this new arrange-
ment or can stay in civil service.
Mr. ADAIR. Yes; that is correct.
Subject to all of the protections provided
in this bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For heaven's
sake, what kind of a two-headed animal
will that be? You have part of them in
civil service and part of them in another
system. I cannot envision a more con-
fusing situation.
Mr. ADAIR. That kind of arrange-
ment arose out of the thing I mentioned
a few minutes ago; that is, our great
effort and zeal to protect the rights of
the individual and assure him that his
civil service rights will be protected.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is com-
mendable, but it will not work.
Mr. ADAIR. Eventually the Foreign
Service will all be operated under one set
of rules, but in the meantime in an effort
to be as fair as possible and in an effort
to give them every protection possible we
do give them an option.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. MAILLIARD. I might say in con-
nection with what the gentleman from
Nebraska just said, that he never heard
of such a two-headed object such as this,
that this Is exactly what we have now.
This is what we had for many years and
what we are precisely trying to cure here.
We are doing this so that we will not have
two parallel systems in the same agency.
Also, will not the gentleman agree that
the Foreign Service, in today's cold war
atmosphere, where the United States
has commitments and obligations of
enormous magnitude and of vital inter-
est to our national security, is more and
more becoming in its responsibilities
comparable to the military services,
probably, in their function for this
country than it is to the domestic civil
service that operates the usual domestic
agencies of our Government? If this
system is approved by the Congress, it
seems to me in return for what some
people, that is, the people who are now
working for the State Department under
civil service, as to what they may give up
or, if they do not choose to give it up,
their successors will give it up, they will
get a great deal in return. They will get
benefits of earlier retirement possibili-
ties more comparable to the military
system. 'rhe selection-out process
works rather similarly to what we have
in the military services where certain
people are selected to go on and others
are let out but with substantial benefits
that would not accrue to someone who
might be let out of the civil service at
the same stage in his career. It is not a
one-way street. There are advantages
granted. It seems to me we ought to put
this problem into its major context to
try to provide a unified national service
In this foreign field that can maintain
exceptionally high standards of compe-
tence, a competence that is really re-
quired in Government service probably
only in the military with a comparable
sense of responsibility and with the con-
sequences of such competence acquired
by these people for the security of our
country.
Mr. ADAIR. I agree wholly with the
gentleman from California, and I ap-
preciate his remarks.
I think in addition to that it ought to
be pointed out, besides giving these peo-
ple an option as to whether they want to
transfer or not, we even go a step fur-
ther and give them an option as to
whether they want to serve abroad with
the Foreign Service or not. If they elect
not to serve abroad, then they do not
have to. We have gone to the fullest ex-
tent possible to give them this protection
and at the same time establish the merit
system which we need and to which the
gentleman made reference.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman.
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Did the gentleman
say it is fair to equate the Foreign Serv-
ice officers and Foreign Service person-
nel with the frontline fighters in our
Military Establishment of our country?
Mr. ADAIR. Of course it is, because
the decisions that they make determine
many, many times whether the use of
the military is indicated.
Mr. HUI CHINSON. Mr. Chairman.
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman,
I am sure the gentleman can answer a
couple of questions in my mind, although
the debate thus far has not revealed the
answers yet. An individual now in the
civil service wculd be given an option.
If he chooses to transfer over into the
Foreign Service. Is there any limita-
tion of time within which he must make
that choice, and if he makes the choice
is that firm or may he transfer back?
Mr. ADAIR. The gentleman has
asked two questions. Upon the first, we
did consider providing a limitation of
time and decided not to do so. There is
no limitation of time. As to the second.
If for one reason or another he finds it
wise to transfer to another Government
agency, under this bill it is my opinion
that he may do so and regain his civil
service and veterans preference rights.
Mr. HTJTCHINSON. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have
just listened to the gentleman from New
York Mr. Palmitin]. If we are going
to equate the Foreign Service with our
frontline troops we have lost the war
right now.
Mr. ADAIR. I will say to the gentle-
man that that is exactly what we are
trying to do by this bill, to make it pos-
sible for them to build a better Foreign
Service, and if we pass this bill we are
going to insist that they do.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, there is
not the least assurance in this bill that
the result which the gentleman talks
about will be accomplished; and he
knows it.
Mr. ADAIR, Mr. Chairman, I dis-
agree with the gentleman. I think we
have a good bill.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, we do not
have any ironclad assurance that we are
going to win the war in Vietnam. I
think we will and I hope we will. I am
doing everything I can toward that end.
This bill will do the same thing. We
hope it will improve, and we believe it
will improve the Foreign Service, If it
does not, we will be receptive to other
Ideas.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. At least we are
trying to build up the Foreign Service
so that we may be proud of them, so
that they can handle our foreign affairs
on a basis that will equate them with the
frontline fighters in the interest of the
national security.
(Mrs I