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

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

Mr. HAYS. Further amplifying the answer, which was a very good one, from the gentleman from Indiana, there are certain categories of the foreign service that are more demanding than others. For example, certain areas of the world. This we envisaged to be as flexible as the gentleman from Indiana says. In some areas it would work a hardship and would break his health to serve. If he had only one good eye, it could not necessarily bar him.

Mr. EDMONDSON. A parallel has been drawn here between the military service trying to get our best men on the front lines and the foreign service. We all know as a practical matter that with a disability like the loss of an eye a man would have an almost impossible task to get into the armed services; but I do think the chairman of the subcommittee has made the point that would not necessarily be disqualifying in the foreign service with this new language. Mr. HAYS. We are looking for the We are looking for the best people we can find. Physically we want them to have the necessary qualifications to do the job they are assigned. Mr. MONAGAN. I should like to call attention to one other provision in this bill, and that is the separation for cause section. The amendment that has been suggested there will improve the appeal procedure, will put a limit to delays and will require dispatch in the determination of the rights of any employee under this section.

I hope this bill will pass.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROss].

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, to get this in proper perspective I think the Members of the House ought to know that the chairman of the subcommittee, the author of this bill, was one of those who a year ago supported in the Foreign Affairs Committee a provision in the foreign aid authorization bill for arbitrary select-out procedure for some 200 employees a year. There is no question about what the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HAYS] seeks to do here because his record is clear. I am glad that in the wisdom of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs they threw out that proposal. The gentleman seeks here to do in a roundabout way the same thing that was defeated a year ago.

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

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

grade promotions, the gentleman from Ohio did not support that at all.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from Iowa had the rare privilege of offering an amendment in the committee that was amendment in the committee that was adopted, that being the amendment to adopted, that being the amendment to kill the arbitrary select-out proposal that the gentleman supported. The committee was well aware that in the preceding year every class act employee, with one lone exception, had been given a merilone exception, had been given a meritorious rating, yet all we heard about was the deadwood in the State Department. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

between other agencies of Government? What about the Department of Commerce that has people in the nature of Foreign Service employees? Is it proposed to abolish civil service and veterans' preference everywhere in Government and if not, why not?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 additional minutes to the gentleman from Iowa.

man.

Mr. HAYS. This had nothing whatever to do, and I am sure the gentleman will admit it when he refreshes his memory, with the State Department. This was AID.

Mr. GROSS. Well, all right.

a difference.

Mr. HAYS. May I say to the gentleman, it is not exactly the same kettle of fish. I wish it were. I wish AID were run by the Secretary of State and then I would like to be Secretary of State and I will guarantee you there would be a housecleaning if we had to eliminate the housecleaning if we had to eliminate the whole thing.

Mr. GROSS. I want to conjure up one witness at the outset who is supposed to be in favor of veterans' prefer

ence. I want to read from the RECORD of May 5, 1953, the remarks of the then minority leader of the House, Mr. JOHN minority leader of the House, Mr. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, now the distinguished

Speaker of the House. After saying

that he was in receipt of a telegram from the National Commander of the American Legion, he had this to say at that ican Legion, he had this to say at that time about his support for veterans' preference:

The veterans' organizations of this country are aroused. They are afraid of what is going to happen during this session of Congress. As I said, they have seen things happen. They know that under the present situation the provisions contained in this bill are not necessary even from the angle of expediency or necessity.

So I suggest to my friends on both sides, those of you who are not going to be a party to any movement to destroy the rights of the veterans that Democratic Congresses have built up and given to them, whether you are Republicans or Democrats, if you believe in their rights under existing law, it is a better vote to eliminate this provision, because, as I understand, it will be part of a motion to recommit if it is not eliminated in

the Committee of the Whole.

I have read only two excerpts from his statement in 1953 in complete defense of the veterans' preference which the committee is now seeking to abolish along with the class act in the State Department. Every new employee in the Department of State, effective with this bill, will be a Foreign Service employee, and veterans' preference will be thrown out the window. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ADAIR] talks about discrimIndiana [Mr. ADAIR] talks about discrimination. What about discrimination as

eliminated all the others-the Department of Commerce, the Department of

Agriculture and all the others from the provisions of this act.

Now that does not necessarily say I think Commerce and Agriculture ought to be engaged in foreign affairs. Sometimes I think the Agriculture Department runs more foreign affairs than anybody else.

acceptable about this bill if I had conMr. GROSS. I might find something

fidence in the administration of personnel in the State Department. I cite you have had a prayer-he would have been the case of Otto Otepka. He would not out and gone long ago, with no questions asked and no answers given, had this bill been in effect. Otto Otepka has been suspended for months from his job in

the State Department. I understand he will come up for a hearing on October 11 of this year. But this valuable employee was practically thrown out of the State Department, this chief security evaluator, when three favored employees of that Department perjured themselves under oath before the Senate Internal Security Committee. Where are those perjurers today? One of them is still in the State Department. You talk about cleaning out the liars and cheats in the State Department. Another is over in the Federal Communications Commission holding a top job. I do not recall the whereabouts of the third individual, all of whom admitted their perjury before the Senate Committee under oath. And where is the center of all this controversy-one William Wieland? Where is he today? He, too, has been rewarded by the same State Department that you now want to give untrammeled power. He went to his reward as a top diplomatic official in Australia, this man Wieland who as the former chief of the Caribbean-Latin American desk gave misleading, erroneous information to the Department of State concerning Fidel Castro.

Yes, only recently he was given a fine, top job as a diplomat in Australia, yet the gentleman would turn over to the present administration in the State Department, to their tender mercies, employees who are now under the class act and

I urge you not to take this action until you change the administration of the State Department.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I could not get the gentleman from Iowa to yield. I wish to say two or three things.

In the first place, I do not know anything about Mr. Wieland except that certain charges were brought against him and he was acquitted. At the moment, certain charges have been been brought against the gentleman from Iowa. His election is being contested. I am sitting on the jury. If we acquit him, he will keep his seat here. If anybody asks me where he is, I will say, "Right here, sitting on the floor."

All I know about Mr. Wieland is that he was acquitted. What about Mr. Otepka?

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

Mr. HAYS. Not until I finish.

I could not get much yielding from the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Do not bother if you do not feel like it.

Mr. HAYS. I will not. The gentleman knows me well enough to know that, too.

I do not know too much about Mr. Otepka except that certain charges were brought against him. He is under civil service. If he was a Foreign Service officer, he could have been brought up on charges too. If he was a Foreign Service officer, his level of performance as determined by annual selective boards might have put him in the bottom 10 percent of his class. If he were in the bottom 10 percent for 3 years while in class, he could be selected out.

The gentleman has been complaining

that Mr. Otepka has been denied a trial. What is the fact? The fact is that every continuance that Mr. Otepka has hadand I am not passing judgment on his guilt or innocence because I do not know has been because he or his lawyers have requested it. The State Department has not been shoving him around.

We brought out in the testimony before the committee, if the gentleman read it, that not only was he being treated differently by being given these continuances, but he is being kept on the payroll and he has been drawing his pay every month.

I said to the Secretary one day, "Let day, "Let me ask you something. If Mr. Otepka had been suspended without pay and he had won his case, he would have gotten his backpay."

The Secretary said, "That is right." I said, "Now, you have kept him on. If he loses, and is found guilty, does he have to pay back what he has received?" He said, "Oh, no."

I said-if Members will pardon the expression "Who in the hell is worrying about the taxpayers in this case?"

I say that, as far as pretrial business is concerned, Mr. Otepka has been treated exceptionally well. I do not know anything about his guilt or innocence. I do not propose to try him here.

I must say that that is quite a humanitarian way of looking at it.

The whole point of the statement I wish to make is that the gentleman's talk about Mr. Otepka has no bearing on this legislation whatever.

Furthermore, this red herring was dragged across the trail of this bill, and somebody had an article published in the paper saying that this bill is being writpaper saying that this bill is being written to get Mr. Otepka. That is the first I knew about it. We put in specific language excluding the transfer involuntarily of anyone in the civil service. So if Mr. Otepka is acquitted of these charges, he cannot be forced into the Foreign Service, and then wrongly, as some people have charged, selected out. I will tell you one thing: this subcommittee unanimously-all of the minority and all of the majority-went all the way to protect somebody we do not know very much about.

me of anything, I want to tell the gentleman I am going to get all of the continuances I can get.

Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will yield further, that is

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has again expired.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. REID].

Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I rise in support of many elements of H.R. 6277, including benefits to employees serving in areas of unusual danger; compensation for local employees who are or have been in prison by a foreign government as a result of their employment by the United States; and a single personnel system strengthening opportunities for sound promotion on merit. However, I would like to address myself to one particular question. That is the future of our Foreigr. Service, particularly our Foreign Service officers. I think it is no secret to the Members of this distinguished body that the morale of the Foreign Service today is depressed.

I think it is extremely important that

Mr. HAYS. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In the first place, I am sure with some people moral issues count for more than a pay check, and I think that is true in the case of Otto Otepka. As far as continuances, do you not think the man ought to have

man

Mr. GROSS. Wait a minute. Let me finish the sentence.

Mr. HAYS. It is my time.

moral values have more value than a I will say to the gentleman I do think pay check. That is exactly the way the case has been handled. As far as continuances are concerned, I am not saying he should not have had them. Do not misunderstand me. I am trying to clear up the record in the newspapers and magazines that claim that this man has been shoved around and denied a trial. All I am saying is he has not been denied

a trial. The trial has been postponed at his and his attorney's request. That is all.

tion, would you not like to have your Mr. GROSS. If you were in his posicase heard by a fair and impartial appeal board instead of one that has been handpicked by your accusers?

Mr. HAYS. Oh, let me say this on that.

Mr. GROSS. Just a minute. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has again expired.

Service and is doing all he can to support it. However, I would ask the gentleman's attention and ask if I may inquire of him with respect to one or two matters in this bill.

First, as I understand it, under H.R. 6277, you are establishing a new category of officers-FAO's or Foreign Affairs officers-under section 6. Is that correct? Mr. HAYS. That is correct.

Mr. REID of New York. Further, it is my understanding that these officers can be assigned any place in the home service and overseas with their written consent. Is that correct?

Mr. HAYS. For the transferees, the gentleman is correct. For the people who go in afterward, from the bottom, let us say, the new Foreign Service officers and Foreign Affairs officers who pass an examination and go in, they have no option. They understand when they go in that they can be assigned anywhere abroad or at home.

Mr. REID of New York. I understand the gentleman. With regard to the transferees who become FAO's and some of the FSR's who may be transferred,

Let me say very candidly and very frankly that if I were in the position of being accused of anything-I know I did being accused of anything-I know I did not get legal training, because I came out of the depression, but I know some of the tricks of it, and one is if you do not think you have a case, you keep getnot think you have a case, you keep getting a continuance until everybody forgets about it. If anybody ever accused gets about it. If anybody ever accused

they might be assigned in the home service?

Mr. HAYS. We will assume they might be assigned almost anywhere.

Mr. REID of New York. They might be desk officers, for example?

Mr. HAYS. They could be, possibly, if they had the capability and were outstanding and seemed to be able to contribute something. They could be.

Mr. REID of New York. May I ask the gentleman, is it true that under this legislation the transfer of FSR's under section 29 of the bill is accompanied without any examination?

Mr. HAYS. That is correct.

Mr. REID of New York. Does the gentleman believe that this is a sound provision? Because as I recall it, the Hoover Commission originally suggested that there should be an examination in connection with any such transfer.

Mr. HAYS. I think that is a debatable question. The The committee considered this fairly carefully. We assume that they have already qualified. I believe it I believe it is fair to say that you do not have any FSR's down there who are not uniquely qualified for the job they are doing, or at least they thought they were when they came. An FSR, as the gentleman knows, can be dismissed at any time. He has no protection under civil service, Foreign Service, or anything else. I should think from the human standpoint, a great many of these might want to transfer, and we believe that these people have been selected carefully. They do take a chance when they transfer knowingly, that they have to keep up and stay out

of that bottom 10 percent.

So I think the problem will solve itself. Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair

man, may I ask the gentleman further whether under section 16 he thinks it is a wise provision to extend the authority to the Foreign Service staff officers subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, to give them diplomatic status as well as the consular status that they may be accorded now. I raise this specifically-for if they become first or second secretaries in an embassy, this will presume considerable judgment and tact and knowledge of the diplomatic service.

Mr. HAYS. I would say to the gentleman, if it is done selectively and under unusual circumstances, we think that with the matter of Senate confirmation, that they have to have, that you will not get anybody in there or have much chance of getting anybody in there who is not qualified, any more than you do

now.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. REID of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I think in furtherance of what the gentleman

from Ohio has said, it is anticipated first that there would in all probability be relatively few people who would find themselves in the situation which the

gentleman describes and about which

the gentleman makes inquiry.

Secondly, it is anticipated that those few who would get the initial diplomatic or consular status would certainly be carefully selected by the President and carefully screened before confirmation, Mr. REID of New York. I thank the gentleman, but I would point out that it is my understanding-I do not have the figures on the FSS's, but as to the FSR's as of today there are 1,378 in the Department of State, 1,379 in the U.S. Information Agency, and 3,355 in AID.

The only point I would like to ask the gentleman about again is this: I believe

it is the sense of this House and of the distinguished Foreign Affairs Committee, that it is basic to back the Foreign Service officers, to keep them as an elite corps, to insist on the highest educational and other qualifications and to give the FSO's the satisfaction of belonging to the top corps in the U.S. service, a group that truly has significant responsibilities-the gentleman from Ohio said earlier-making judgments that can affect peace or war. I hope the gentleman might wish to reaffirm the importance that the House and his distinguished committee accords to the Foreign Service officers in their full support without any dilution of this Service, their dedication, and their standing.

Mr. HAYS. I think it is fair to say that everybody on the Foreign Affairs Committee, even those who might oppose this position referred to, agrees with the gentleman's statement; certainly I do. Mr. REID of New York. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. TALCOTT).

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I re

quested this time to ask a couple of questions either of the gentleman from Indiana or of the gentleman from Ohio.

Section 24 of the bill adds a new sec

Mr. HAYS. I am not familiar with every single thing that happens to a GI that is taken prisoner, but I would say in principle he would be treated very similarly. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. TALCOTT. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I was concerned about extra pay designed to give the alien some sort of gratuity or benefit or bonus for pain and suffering while in prison.

Mr. HAYS. No; he would only get his regular salary.

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

Mr. TALCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. But there is no mandatory restriction in section 24.

Mr. TALCOTT. The restriction appears to be based upon the Missing Persons Act with which I am not familiar. This is why I was asking the question. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. HAYS. That is correct, and it is stated specifically on page 25, section 24 of the report, at the end of the first paragraph, wherein it says:

When such a determination has been made, the alien employee's salary, including normal within-class increases and related

fringe benefits, would be paid to the employee or his dependents as if he had continued in the employment of the U.S. Government.

tion to the act to provide for payments to alien employees who have been imprisoned by a foreign government because of their employment by the United States. Recently on the Private Calendar we have had a number of cases which proposed to provide bonuses and gratuities for pain and suffering; bonuses and gratuities for "sacrifices"; bonuses for extra years' pay; payments of 6 months' salaries to relatives; giving of favorable hypothetical promotions during their imprisonment, and a number of other extra benefits which are considerably greater than those given to minute to the gentleman from Illinois American citizens under the Missing Persons Act.

which would be general legislation for I would like to inquire if this act, these types of cases, provides bonuses and gratuities for pain and suffering?

Mr. HAYS. If the If the gentleman will yield, no. May I say to the gentleman in answer to his question, and it is a logical question, this provides only one benefit and the report states on page 25 as

follows:

When such a determination has been made, the alien employee's salary, including normal within-class increases and related fringe benefits would be paid to the employee or his dependents as if he had continued in the

employment of the U.S. Government.

Mr. TALCOTT. Would there be hypothetical promotions?

Mr. HAYS. He would get whatever in-grade promotions were coming to him, yes; but he would not get anything for pain and suffering, he would not get anything for confiscation of property but just his normal salary and other fringe benefits.

Mr. TALCOTT. Would the alien employee be considered the same as a GI taken prisoner in battle? I understand that he retains his rank?

It does not authorize compensation for any other losses such as confiscation of property. Mr. TALCOTT. I thank the gentleOTT. man.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1

[Mr. O'HARA].

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairin experience as well as in industry, of again to point up the rich background, man, I have asked for this time merely this debate. I think this has been an unusually interesting debate. The RECORD should show that the able gentleman from New York [Mr. REID] Who

made a large contribution to the discussion is not a stranger to the subject matter. A great Republican, a great

Member of this House, OGDEN REID served our country with outstanding distinction as our Ambassador to Israel, and I know our American men and women in the Foreign Service will be happy that one with such intimate firsthand knowledge of their problems participated in these discussions.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Montana

[Mr. OLSEN).

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to certain parts of H.R. 6277, and I take this time to briefly point up some of the reasons.

This is one of many, many departments that has a dual personnel system. It is not any different for the Foreign

Service to have one classification for Foreign Service officers and then an entirely different personnel system for the ordinary administrative personnel. This is true of the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, the Public Health Service, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, just to name a few. But there are many others that have dual personnel administrative agencies.

The Foreign Service, I do not think, is any more entitled to take away from the general civil service the rights of people working for them and eliminate that kind of service than would the Defense Department. I do not think the Foreign Service is any greater agency than the Defense Department, yet we require the Defense Department to hire civilian personnel for the kind of jobs that are civil service. Then for those kinds of jobs that are combatant jobs, we have the officers and men of the armed services.

Time and again the argument comes to the Congress about encroachment

upon what should be regular civil service jobs, and what should be military jobs. We go to great lengths to protect the civil service jobs.

This bill, as I see it, is in three parts, really. It makes three points.

One, it would make a single personnel system for the Foreign Service. It would thus destroy civil service rights in the civil service system for the civil service people already in. And it would destroy those rights for the future. It would also destroy veterans' preference.

The thing that really disturbs me most is that there is a complete ignoring of the fact these people are stenographers, clerks, they are mail handlers, there are some attorneys and economists. They are this particular classification. They do not have to be Foreign Service officers. They are not specifically

trained for the Foreign Service. They are a kind of profession or employment that could be used in any other agency of the Government, and would be interchangeable with any other agency of the Government. So I say it is an unnecessary piece of legislation in those regards.

There are other parts of the legislation I strongly support. But I want at this time to describe three amendments. I ain going to offer them en bloc. One of them is to delete section 2. This is This is the section which amends the Foreign Service Act to permit the employment of Foreign Service personnel in the United States. Heretofore employees in domestic jobs themselves were required to be covered under the Civil Service and Classification Acts. If my amendment is adopted it will keep civil service protection for jobs. The bill contains protection for personnel now holding those jobs, but all future employees in those jobs will be Foreign Service without civil service or veterans' rights.

My next amendment would delete section 29. This section permits the President to transfer present civil service employees in the three agencies involved from the civil service to the Foreign Service. This means in effect that pres

ent civil service employees who are thus transferred lose the job security afforded by the civil service laws and veterans' preference.

Finally, the third part of my amendment would delete section 32. This section makes inapplicable the Veterans' Preference Act, the Civil Service Act, and the Lloyd La Follette Act, and would restore in this bill the civil service right of employees and would restore veterans' preference rights to the veterans.

The CHAIRMAN. There being no further requests for time, the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Service Act Amendments of 1965".

SEC. 2. Section 111(1) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, is amended by inserting "at home and" immediately after

"to serve".

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. Ninety Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll. The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their names:

Andrews,

George W. Ashbrook Ashley

Baring Berry

Bolton Bonner

Cameron

Cederberg

Clawson, Del Culver

Daddario Derwinski Diggs Dulski

Long, Md.

McClory

Martin, Ala. Mathias May Murray

Reifel Resnick Rhodes, Ariz. Roncalio

Rumsfeld

Ryan

Saylor Schmidhauser

Sisk

Smith, Iowa Thomas

Toll

Utt

White, Idaho Wilson, Charles H.

Flood Fuqua Hagan, Ga. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. MOORHEAD, Chairman of the ComMr. MOORHEAD, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill H.R. 6277, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 373 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he sub

mitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal. sentees to be spread upon the Journal. The Committee resumed its sitting.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLSEN OF

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. OLSEN of Montana: On page 1, beginning at line 5, strike

out all of section 2;

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair

man, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6277, but I think this amendment, together with two other amendments I will offer, will make the bill satisfactory.

Mr. Chairman, the bill, H.R. 6277, would abolish all of the civil service rights of presently employed civil servants in the Foreign Service system.

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

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HAYS. The bill does no such thing at all. The bill will not abolish a single right that any single employee under the civil service has unless he voluntarily elects to transfer to the Foreign Service.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. If he elects to transfer to the Foreign Service, civil service rights will not apply any longer. For those jobs which are ordinary jobs, that are applicable in any other agency of the Government, henceforth there will be no civil service rights. In other words, in the Foreign Service there will be one personnel system.

I made a comparison earlier with the Defense Department. In the Defense Department we have two personnel systems. We have the military personnel system covering military officers and men, and we have for the jobs that are ordinarily the civilian kind of jobs the civil service. Those people are covered by the Classification Act that has been in effect since early in the century.

My amendment would delete section 2. This section amends the Foreign Service Act to permit the employment of Foreign Service personnel in the United States. Heretofore employees in domestic jobs themselves were required to be covered under the Civil Service and Classification Acts. If this amendment is adopted it will keep civil service protection for jobs. The bill contains protections for personnel now holding those jobs, that is true, but all future employees in those jobs will be Foreign Service without civil service or veterans' rights.

and I will urge the adoption of two other I urge the adoption of this amendment, amendments so that we will maintain

the distinction between what is civil service and what is entitled to civil service status and protection, and what is entitled to veterans' preference, and then what is a Foreign Service officer.

By retaining the present distinction, we will operate as we are operating in numerous other departments where there are dual personnel systems, and there are numerous situations of that kind.

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

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PELLY. I am wondering, if the gentleman's amendments are adopted by the Committee of Whole, will the gentleman then support this bill?

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I will vote for the bill if my three amendments are adopted.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GILBERT. First, may I compliment the distinguished gentleman from Montana for offering this amendment which I think is so important. But I wish to ask him a question.

If your amendment is not adopted, then as I understand it no veteran would have a preference in the Foreign Service field working for the State Department. Now I am talking only about employees employed in the United States.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. This particular amendment does not go right to the heart of your question. That will be my third amendment which will absolutely guarantee this preference. This This amendment has to do more with preserving the civil service status of those jobs that are ordinary civilian jobs.

Mr. GILBERT. I thank the gentle

man.

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

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to I yield to the gentleman.

I

Mr. MORRISON. I want to commend the gentleman for this amendment. am certainly in agreement with him on this amendment. Our Committee on Post Office and Civil Service have always taken the position that the civil service should be strengthened and everything possible done to further the civil service rights of Federal employees. I think with the three amendments that the gentleman has that we can vote for this bill if his amendments are adopted. Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the

gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman could also have pointed out that in the Department of Defense there are also many wage board workers, in addition to class act employees, who are protected by veterans' preference and civil service. Thus there are three personnel systems in the Defense Department as compared with two in the State Department yet I hear of no such legislation as this being requested by the Pentagon.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a speech about civil service, but his amendment really does not have much to do with the civil service. The amendment that he is seeking to put in now destroys the flexibility of this act so far as the ability of the State Department to transfer people between posts at home and abroad. Let me give you one example.

Suppose they had a Foreign Service officer who was in charge of the division of the foreign building program in, let us say, Europe, and it was felt desirable to bring him back to head up the whole division. This is what we want the De

to go into the Foreign Service category unless they want to-but if they do want to transfer and they want to serve abroad, we want to be able to send them overseas or put them on a desk and use them to the best of their ability. This amendment would just simply handcuff amendment would just simply handcuff and shackle the Department. It does not have anything to do with civil service and I ask my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment now pending and also of the other two amendments that the gentleman from Montana will offer.

These amendments are very important and are much needed amendments. Those of you who were here during the general debate will recall the statement I made that there is great opposition to this bill. It is opposed by all of the It is opposed by all of the Federal employee groups-all of the employee unions, postal and other civil service groups in the Federal service. It is opposed by the five major veterans' organizations.

Mr. Chairman, unless these three amendments are adopted, I certainly as one Member of this body cannot support this bill and I am sure there are many, many others who cannot support this bill.

I understand, as a result of our discussion during general debate, that the opposition to this bill has been so terrific from the veterans' groups that the committee is going to offer some willy-nilly amendment-a sort of sense-of-Congress type of thing-in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the veterans' groups. Such an amendment will mean nothing. It might fool a few people, but it will not overcome the objec

tions of the veterans who have so strongly supported the Veterans Preference Act, which we have revered through all the years, at least during my service on the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. So I do hope that the So I do hope that the gentleman's amendment will prevail. I do hope that his others will prevail. I would even say that when the committee offers their willy-nilly amendment, which means nothing, it ought to be voted down.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. HENDERSON. I commend the gentleman on his statement. Those of us on the Post Office and Civil Service us on the Post Office and Civil Service Committee are trying to be as constructive as we can be, but we are quite concerned about what will happen to the merit system of the civil service employees, not only in the State Department-in AID and the other agencies involved-but once we start passing that type of legislation, we are chipping away at the civil service merit system. The gentleman from Montana [Mr. OLSEN] is commended for offering his amendment to section 2.

We have discussed the other amendments and, of course, at the time they are offered we can express ourselves. But on the amendment before the House, it, to me, is the most critical amendment with regards to the future of the civil service merit system throughout the Federal Government. I certainly hope that the Members would give serious consideration to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HAYS] well knows that the purport of the bill is to put all Classification Act employees under Foreign Service. Service. Yet the last two personnel managers in the AID organization were transferred out of the Foreign Service under the Classification Act. Transfers in the USIA have also been covered. They have been transferred out of Foreign Service under the Classification Act. The flexibility is there and it is being used. It ought to be continued.

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida rise?

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FASCELL. The bill certainly does not affect the postal employees in any way, notwithstanding the fact that they might be opposed to it.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, either a lot of those who are supporting the

amendment do not understand it, or they are attempting to mislead Members. This does not have anything to do with civil service employees. The whole effect of the amendment would be to prevent Service officer back from abroad and putthem from bringing a capable Foreign ting him into a job in which he is needed

here. That would be the net effect of it. I do not know who dreamed this amendment up. I can debate the merits of the preference and say that there are two gentleman's amendment on veterans' sides to the question, but the pending than an attempt to gut the bill, and no amendment is nothing more nor less other interpretation can be placed upon it.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FASCELL. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. The import of the amendment is to stop the foreign service from displacing civil service em

ployees who have been historically in their jobs. That is all there is to it.

Mr. HAYS. Now we get down to the point. In other words, there are people downtown who say, "I have a vested right. This job belongs to civil service, and if you cannot find some capable fellow to fill it, fill it with some incapable

fellow."

That is the import of the

amendment.

Now we get to the meat of it. Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Yes, we get down to the meat of it, because the bill