first, they do not have to transfer unless they want to; second, even if they transfer, they cannot be sent overseas unless they indicate that they are willing to go

overseas.

I leave it to the gentlewoman to determine 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 under civil service regulations, is it not true that he will not lose his veteran's preference?

Mr. HAYS. He will not lose his veteran's preference under any circumstances unless he elects to transfer to the

Foreign Service system. But if he really believes he has to have veteran's preference to maintain his position, my advice to him would be not to transfer, and he

does not have to.

Mr. HAYS. Absolutely and categorically, no one will be denied a promotion. Mrs. KELLY. I thank the gentleman. 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 certainly 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 Mexico. 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 preference system.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The underlying purpose of many of the amendments is to enable the three prin

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think the answers given by the gentleman from Ohio swers given by the gentleman from Ohio to the questions submitted by the distinguished gentlewoman from New York tinguished gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from New Mexico have answered most of the substantive questions I had in mind concerning this questions I had in mind concerning this legislation. However, for the RECORD I would like to emphasize one point, if would like to emphasize one point, if I have understood the gentleman correctly.

The point is that under this legislation no veteran's preference or veteran's tion no veteran's preference or veteran's right is extinguished or reduced in any right is extinguished or reduced in any way for any employees of the State Department 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 where it does not now exist. Is that employment in the State Department correct?

Mr. HAYS. Under the language of the gentleman's amendment it could

have that effect.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman.

myself such time as I may consume. Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I yield

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 fullest 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 committee 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 identify the changes made by the committee we reported the original bill with amendments.

Mr. HAYS. I can say to the gentleman 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 There are 75 amendments. Admitand this sets no precedent in any way, tedly, a number of them are technical, shape, or form. clerical, or conforming amendments. Mr. MORRIS. I thank the gentle- But there are also very basic substantive amendments.

man.

USIA, and AID-to operate under a single 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 judgment 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 distinguished private citizens. guished private citizens. One Member from this body who served with great distinction was the late Clarence Brown, of Ohio.

The Commission operated through a series of task forces, one of which concerned 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. FRELINGHUYSEN].

Quite clearly, what we are recommending in this bill is not a unique concept. 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 criticism. 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 authorize 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 affairs 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 officials and from other congressional committees, all of whom expressed an understandable concern about the implications 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 assumption 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 foreign affairs agencies named in the billState, AID, and USIA.

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 evaluation 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 veterans' 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 approach in this bill. Simply stated, present civil service employees may elect to transfer to the Foreign Service system. In making such an election, they will weigh the advantages and the disadvantages of a transfer including a consideration of their civil service status and any privileges they may enjoy under veterans' preference. The choice is theirs. I call the attention of the House to page 12 of our report 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 service laws and veterans' preference will be inoperative so long as he is in that system. If he later moves to an agency whose employees come under civil service, both his civil service rights and veterans' 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 veterans preference legislation. I firmly believe 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 before 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 Foreign Service officers. Under this bill foreign affairs officers in classes 1, 2, and 3 would also be Presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation. While foreign affairs officers is classes 4 through 7 would not be subject to Senate confirmation, they would be competing with Foreign Service officers, many of whom are veterans but do not enjoy veterans preference. This in itself would create a serious morale problem. Further, the whole emphasis of this bill is to develop a personnel system where the personal qualifications of the individual will be the determining factor in appointments, advancement, and retention. The question may well be asked: Is this a precedent for further encroachments on veterans preference? My answer 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 juserence provisions operate. I see no justification for any changes in these provisions. I would strenuously oppose, as I am certain most Members of this House 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 system 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 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 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 precise subjects upon which an individual is to be examined; that will depend upon his special field as well as his level of 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 approach. They are unrelated to any issues proach. They are unrelated to any issues of foreign policy. They are concerned of foreign policy. They are concerned with the machinery by which policy may be developed and implemented. This bill came out of the subcommittee unanicame out of the subcommittee unanimously. 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 agencies of Government, is a sound one, then 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 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 discharge 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 value of their service to our Government against the larger national requirements that would permit the more effective that would permit the more effective utilization of their talents. It is my beutilization of their talents. It is my belief that any organizational pattern is worth little or nothing if it is indifferent worth little or nothing if it is indifferent to individuals. That concern was uppermost in the minds of the committee during the drafting of this bill. I think we have succeeded. I urge the House to adopt this bill.

that as a policy, wherever it is possible, not violating other rules and laws which will be established if this bill becomes law, but to the extent practicable, veterans' preference shall be taken into account. 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, people 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 available 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 veteran. To that extent I would agree with what the gentleman from Ohio said, it does nothing about an extension of veterans' 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 gentleman, as has been said earlier this afternoon, 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. 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 apply he would again be clothed with that protection. This is a matter for people now covered by civil service to decide entirely at their own option. Of course, people coming in hereafter will be expected to come in under the new ground rules that we are trying to establish.

Mr. CORBETT. They will not be under the civil service in any case?

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CORBETT. Some of us are now quite confused as to what the gentleman's amendment regarding veterans' preference will be. The gentleman from Ohio indicated it not only would be applicable 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 amendment I propose to offer would be to say

that when John Macy was before our committee, and I said this earlier this afternoon, he gave a very strong statement 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 originally graded them or condemned them for some act. In other words, there is no outside review of the facts of their

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 twothirds as you have to be to stay in college these days-but in the top 90 percent. 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 competitive and be on the ball. I do not think we need to worry about the individual 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 attention by other Members. We wrote language 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 separation for cause. I really think that my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is worrying unnecessarily. We are worrying a little bit about the Government 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 possibly be that the trouble comes from the fact that the bill was not referred to the Civil Service Committee, which has had Civil Service Committee, which has had a great deal of experience in this type of 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 gentleman that the Foreign Affairs Committee has always handled Foreign Service personnel questions.

Mr. CORBETT. And yet we are supposed 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 machinery 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 further at that point. I will say to the gentleman that there has been no statement 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 beNo. 75 or No. 76-but it will be a sort of 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 gentleman. 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 amendment would go as far as the leaders of the veterans' organizations feel that 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 pointMr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HAYS. I should like to make a statement at that point. A committee was appointed, headed by a former commander of the American Legion and including 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 efforts to attract and bring into the Foreign Service junior officers of high caliber and potential.

The Department should intensify its efforts to weed out mediocre personnel by increasing materially the number selected out.

Then they go on to say that the selection boards should be authorized to review even more personnel than they are. This is a group of five former national commanders. 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."

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 people. They can go into this new arrangement 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

In the first place, the individual civil servant makes the decision whether he wishes to transfer into the Foreign Service system. He is not coerced; nor will he be fired if he decides not to transfer. The decision is entirely his. By givthe option to the individual the committee is aware that this will undoubtedly delay the organizational changes the Department and the committee want to accomplish. But we are willing to delay what we believe to be necessary if, by so doing, we can retain the services of many of these employees without any impairment of their morale.

The committee has written additional safeguards into the bill for those who may elect to transfer into the Foreign Service system. They are not subject to any qualifying examinations. This provision is in sharp contrast with a proposal made by the Hoover Commission that individuals who transferred must qualify by examination. It is our belief that individuals already employed have established their qualifications. Further, if they elect to transfer, they do not have to serve abroad without their written consent. Again we were aware that many civil service employees had personal reasons for declining overseas assignments. Frankly, I hope that at least some of them will request one or two tours of duty abroad. It will give them a much better perspective for carrying out their assignments at home. We wrote into the bill that any transferee will not suffer a salary reduction. Finally, those who transfer may become participants in the Foreign Service retirement system.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that many who oppose this bill do not recognize what the committee has done to accommodate the civil service employees. Some critics allege that this bill destroys the merit system. This charge is based on the assumption that the Foreign Service is not a merit system. For more than 40 years it has been governed by merit. When the committee wrote the Foreign Service Act in 1946, it strengthened those provisions that would assure the continuation of the merit system. One of the advantages of the Foreign Service system over the civil service system is that merit may be more readily identified and rewarded.

The committee listened to arguments about selection-out. It is apparent to me that that is a much misunderstood procedure. I call attention to pages 21 to 23 of our report where we have spelled out just what the selection-out procedure is and how it operates. Most of the critics failed to note that it is through a selection process that individuals are recommended for promotion. Certainly the statistics on selection-out do not bear out the charge that it is vicious or wideranging. In an average year fewer than 2 percent of our Foreign Service officers are selected out. In AID, during the past 2 years less than 1 percent were actually selected out.

In urging my colleagues to support this bill, I do so on the ground that we have achieved a balance between the national needs for a first-rate Foreign Service and the protection of individuals who

may be affected by this bill. We have accorded to those individuals every protection that came to our attention. None of us is seeking to destroy the civil service system nor to impair the rights of veterans. We are simply trying to correct a single situation that is not in our national interest.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. MONAGAN].

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill H.R. 6277. I should like to say, too, that I found it a very educational and rewarding experience to serve

on this subcommittee under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HAYS]. I think all of us learned a great deal about the problems of the Foreign Service and of Government employees generally.

It is certainly our hope and expectation that what we are doing here will provide a foundation for a better Foreign Service. If that were not so we would not have voted this bill out unani

mously, as we did.

It is true that as the legislation originally came to us there was a very serious objection to it in that it had a mandatory quality about it that required the transfer of employees from one system to an

other. But it seemed to me and seemed to members of the committee that when this mandatory aspect was taken out and when the transfer was made voluntary, the major objection to this legislation had been removed. There is reason in having a service, a Government service, that is dedicated to the foreign operations of the United States. You have only to read the summary in the report of the various committees and commissions that have investigated the Foreign Service to realize that there has been a constant desire expressed to build a prestige service, to build one that will have something a bit unique about it, as the gentleman from California [Mr. MAILLIARD] has said, in comparison with the military service.

That is the reason why there has been a distinct Foreign Service separated from the general run of Government employees who are in the civil service.

Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Service Act of 1946 had as its objective the strengthening of this professional, disciplined, and mobile corps of Foreign Service officers who are available for worldwide service, and it is to continue this type of service and to improve it that this bill is brought before the House today.

Mr. Chairman, reference has been made to the processes of selection out. I hope that Members who have the opportunity to do so will look at page 21 of the report, section 20, which covers the selection-out process. It points out, first of all, that there has really been a very modest use of this authority in that less than 2 percent of Foreign Service officers have been selected out. officers have been selected out. Certainly, that would be a very good measure as to what might happen in the future under this legislation. With a reserve complement of about 3,300 in the reserve complement of about 3,300 in the Agency for International Development, Agency for International Development, only 47 were recommended in 2 years for only 47 were recommended in 2 years for

selection out. Of these, 24 left by resignation or retirement before the process had been completed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the attention of the members of the Committee to the fact that the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Honorable John W. Macy, made this observation to the committee, which appears on page 22 of the report:

Any fears of wholesale dismissals by selection out are contradicted by the record of the Foreign Service in using this authority on a limited, conservative basis.

Ohio [Mr. HAYS] has already referred to Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from another important quotation on this same page, the one from the Special Liaison Committee of the American Legion, which recommended that the State Department "should intensify its efforts to weed out mediocre personnel by increasing materially the number selected out on the basis of selection board evaluations." board evaluations." That is exactly what is sought to be done through the passage of this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut has expired. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the

gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MONAGAN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, because I wanted to get an authoritative comment upon the meaning of the language which appears on page 7 of the bill, subsection (c) which is a requirement that, "no person shall be eligible for appointment under subsection (a), or under the first sentence of subsection (b), of this section unless he has passed such comprehensive mental and physical examinations as the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service may prescribe to determine his fitness and aptitude for the work of the Service."

May I ask the gentleman from Connecticut if this is going to make it impossible for a disabled individual, one disabled in a physical way such as the loss of an eye or an amputation or something of that nature, since there are many competent men in this category who make a great contribution to the Foreign Service-would this make it impossible for people with this type of disability to serve in the Foreign Service?

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Connecticut yield to me to respond to that question?

Mr. MONAGAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ADAIR. I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma that the committee considered that precise point and for that reason did not write specifics into the law concerning the types of examinations given.

It is our feeling that the type of examination should be geared to the requirements of the office sought and to the extent that it is compatible with that, and they take into account the entire situation, including the physical capabilities of the applicant. We left it open for the reason the gentleman suggests.