AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 21, 2014
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: August 7, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

1964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
seen it accepted in conference. How-
ever, I recognize that sometimes if we
wish to have any bill, we must make
some undesirable concessions.
It could be argued that it would be
better to have no bill. However, my feel-
ing is that in the future it may be shown
to be necessary to amend the law in
order to make provision 'for full time
public defenders in some districts. At
least it is a great step forward to have
a law on the books, even though it is
inadequate and not entirely what we
would like to have. The matter has been
pressed by several Attorneys General in
the past. This will at least be a step
in the right direction. Many forward-
looking people believe that defense
counsel should be provided for an ac-
cused who is not able to pay for his own
defense.
I congratuate the distinguished Sena-
tor from Nebraska and the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Eavnc] on their great achievement in
bringing the bill to this point.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I am de-
lighted that this legislation is about to
be enacted into law. In company with
the able and distinguished Senator from
Nebraska and the able and distinguished
junior Senator from New York, I have
been very much interested in the legisla-
tioni. The stage at which we find the
legislation at the present time is due in
large measure to the distinguished junior
Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING]
and the distinguished Senator from
Nebraska. The able and distinguished
Senator from Nebraska is more respon-
sible than any other man for the com-
pletion of the work on the bill. The
legislation represents not only a fine for-
ward step in the adminishtration of
criminal justice, but it represents also a
willingness on the part of Congress to
? plement the ruling of the U.S. Su-
p eme Court with reference to the fur-
nishing of counsel to those who cannot
engage counsel of their choosing.
The Senator from Nebraska has the
thanks of all who believe in the ad-
ministration of criminal justice in a fair
way for what he has done in this con-
nection.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, for a
long time I, too, have been interested
in providing adequate legal counsel to
indigent defendants charged with Fed-
eral crimes. I have worked with bar
associations' and have introduced bills
to bring about what was contemplated
by the Senate-passed bill.
I appreciate very much the desire of
my colleagues to make the bill as good
as it could humanly be made. The
Senator from Nebraska is quite right
in his concern about the omission from
the bill 'of the so-called public defender
provision, which would have authorized
a full-time public defender where
needed.
I feel that the Senator from Nebras-
ka, my colleague, the Senator from New
York, and the Senator from North Car-
olina are entitled to the thanks of the
whole country, especially the thanks of
the families of accused persons, who,
wandering around in a labyrinth of law,
feel that the law is blind or unjust.
This law is a milestone and a landmark
in the solicitude and care of lawyers
for the accused under our system of
justice, and a blessing to the families
of the accused who must contfront the
whole majesty of the law and in doing
so are absolutely lost and confused and
bewildered. Our colleagues have rend-
ered a signal service, and I congratulate
them from the bottom of my heart. I
know that thousands of families will
bless them.
This bill is a beginning. We hope
that all the bar associations and legal
aid societies who provide these services
will measure up to what is expected of
them, because what will happen in con-
nection with this law, and how well the
law will be administered will in a large
measure be up to the organized bar, at
whose door it is laid. We hope they
will take this mandate from Congress
and treat it as a sacred trust and see
to it that every dollar that is spent will
produce the devotion that is contem-
plated. Thousands of families will be
grateful to them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the c
ence report.
The report was agree
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I
move that the Senate resume the con-
sideration of Calendar No. 1123, H.R.
11380.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Montana.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate resumed the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 11380) to amend further the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1124 and ask that
it be read.
The . PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:.I
On page 13, beginning with line 24, strike ?
out all through line 2 on page 15.
On page 15, line 3, strike out "(4)" and
"(k)" and insert in lieu thereof "(2)" and
"(j)", respectively.
On page 15, line 4, strike out "(k)" and
Insert in lieu thereof "(j)".
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Kansas yield, without
losing his right to the floor?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
had hoped it would be possible to reach
a vote on this amendment shortly. The
Senator from Kansas has said he would
ask for the yeas and nays on the amend-
ment. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
17937
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING AZ)]oteiCER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, on my
amendment I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, the
amendment I am offering, which is co-
sponsored by the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], and the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr.
BEALL], would strike from the bill sub-
section 302(a) (2) and (3).
I ask unanimous consent that the lan-
guage we proposed to strike be printed at
this point in the RECORD. It appears on
page 13, lines 24 and 25, all of page 14,
and through line 2, page 15.
There being no objection, the lan-
guage was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
(2) Subsection (e) is amended to read as
follows:
"(e) The President is authorized to pre-
scribe by regulation standards or other cri-
teria for maintaining adequate performance
levels for personnel employed or assigned to
perform duties pursuant to this Act and
y, notwithstanding any other provision of
this or any other law, but subject to an
appropriate administrative appeal, separate
personnel who fail to meet such standards
or other criteria, other than personnel em-
ployed under section 624(d), 625(b), 625(k),
626(a) or 631 of this Act, and also may grant
personnel separated hereunder severance
benefits of one month's salary for each year's
service, but not to exceed one year's salary
at the then current salary rate of such per-
sonnel."
(3) Add the following new subsection (j) :
"(j) The President is authorized, at any
time during the two-year period commenc-
ing on the effective date of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1964, to separate, not-
withstanding any other provision of this or
any other law, any person employed or as-
signed to perform duties pursuant to this
Act. The authority contained in this sub-
section shall not apply to persons with Gen-
eral Schedule appointments of grade 12 or
below, Foreign Service Reserve appointments
of class 5 or below, or Foreign Service Staff
appointments of class 3 or below, or to per-
sons employed under section 624(d) of this
Act. The aggregate number of persons sep-
arated under this subsection shall not exceed
one hundred in any twelve-month period."
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, these
sections would extend to the head of the
Agency for International Development?
AID?authority, not limited by the pres-
ent law, to fire certain employees and
also to eliminate others, apparently in
any-grade level, through a process popu-
larly referred to as "selection out."
Mr. President, here is another at-
tempt by a Federal agency to bypais the
Veterans Preference Act and the civil
service merit system, which were suc-
cessfully merged in 1883. This to me is
purely a political move and must be re-
sisted by every friend of the civil service
system.
I realize there are administrative and
personnel problems in the AID program.
It occurs to me that management may
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
F
17938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
be partly responsible for this. The rec-
ord is not good.
Since 1956 AID and its predecessor
agencies have had, according to my in-
formation, five administrators, six direc-
tors of personnel?five of these since
1961?and eight directors of manage-
ment. Would it not be reasonable to sug-
gest that the problem is fluctuating
policies rather than incompetence of em-
ployees.
It is indeed paradoxical that AID now
seeks to dismiss 200 employees during
the next 2 years, as well as to dispose of
an unknown number of others through a
selection-out process over an indefinite
period of time.
This request for summary firing au-
thority and selection-out authority must
be viewed in the total context of the
Agency's personnel situation . It has
been stressed that these new authorities
are necessary to enable the Administrator
to improve the quality of his staff, and
at the same time reduce its total size by
a net 1,200 employees by the end of
fiscal year 1965.
These two authorities will not improve
the quality of the AID staff, but will in
fact do just the opposite, and if ap-
proved will eventually downgrade the
entire Federal personnel system. The
AID Administrator has testified to the
Congress that these two authorities are
not expected to reduce the total size of
the AID staff by more than an estimated
300 employees by June of 1965. How
then will the necessary reduction of 1,200
be accomplished and how can the quality
of the AID staff be improved?
Once the authority is granted to AID
to select-out its civil service employees,
how long do you think it will be before
State, USTA, and then other agency
managements demand the same easy out
from their supervisory responsibilities?
I invite attention to the fact that these
are civil service employees. For years,
there has been in the Foreign Service a
process of selection-out of Foreign Serv-
ice personnel; but they are not civil
service personnel. It seems to me that
the question then is, Is the career civil
servant thus to be denied his rights to
written charges, to appeal to the CSC,
to job retention based on seniority and
veterans' preference, and a "satisfactory"
performance standard by the Congress
which developed these career features
over the years by passage of the Lloyd-
La Follette, Veterans' Preference, and
Civil Service Acts? Is this injustite to
be done so an inept beaurocracy, victim
of its own internal politics as well as out-
side pressures for continuing change, can
remain faceless when stigmatizing a man
and separating him from his livelihood?
These two authorizations deny to the
employees of AID the due process of the
laws passed 'in behalf of all Federal
workers; namely, Lloyd-La Follette, Vet-
erans' Preference, Civil Service, and For-
eign Service Acts?involving the right to
written charges, appeals to the CSC, sen-
iority and veterans' retention rights, and
career job protection.
These unwarranted innovations to the
civil service and Foreign Service merit
systems constitute a precedent dangerous
to the integrity of the career govern-
mental service and opens the door to dis-
crimination by voiding the laws protect-
ing the competitive service employee
from arbitrary and capricious dismissal.
Our American tradition of checks and
balances is superior in the long run to a
? system where all power is vested in one
man. Our personnel system is basically
one of laws. Willfully abusing these
laws is an inexcusable breach of faith
with the career employees employed by
AID with the understanding that their
status was protected.
The executive branch has expediently
confused this issue by burying these two
personnel authorities in a $31/2 billion
foreign aid authorization bill and Con-
gress has avoided an informal review by
the committees who usually have juris-
diction over such basic innovations to
our Federal personnel system.
This proposal should have been con-
sidered and studied, and hearings should
have been held by the Civil Service' Com-
mittee of which the distinguished chair-
man is the Senator from South Carolina
[Mr. JOHNSTON].
Mr. President, I hold in my hand a
statement by the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] who is absent
today on official business and a cosponsor
of this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to have the
statement printed in the RECORD at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, what-
ever reduction in staff is necessary can be
effectively handled by attrition, volun-
tary retirements and existing reduction-
in-force procedures. Whatever upgrad-
ing of staff is required can be achieved
by selective recruitment, and probation-
ary dismissals.
In my opinion, these amendments
should be deleted.
I hold in my hand a letter from the
American Legion stating their great
concern about the proposal in the bill.
They state that they cannot stand by
and let this amendment be approved
without expressing their complete oppo-
sition to it in total disregard of the civil
service and veterans' preference proce-
dures.
I ask unanimous consent to have this
letter be printed in the RECORD. -
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE AMERICAN LEGION,
WASHINGTON OF.auCE OF THE
NATIONAL COMMANDER,
Washington, D.C., July 16, 1964.
Hon. FRANK CARLSON,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CARLSON: Consonant with
long-established policy of the American Le-
gion concerning veterans' preference, I must
express complete disapproval of the action
taken by the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee in restoring certain personnel admin-
istrative, provisions to H.R. 11380, the For-
eign Assistance. Act of 1964. Specifically, I
refer to subsections 302(a) (2) and (3)
which had previously been rejected by the
House Foreign Affairs Committee by a 16-to-6
vote. These provisions would authorize the
Administrator to separate Agency for In-
August 7
ternational Development (AID) employees
without regard to civil service and veterans'
preference laws and regulations.
Representatives of the American Legion
appeared before both the House and Senate
committees concerned and vigorously pro-
tested inclusion of the above provisions.
As you know, AID and its predecessor
agencies have previously had and exercised
similar special authority to that now re-
quested. It is interesting to note that in
the past year all but 1 of 1,400 classified
AID employees were awarded in-grade pay
increases for satisfactory service which is
no longer automatic and must be earned.
This demonstrates rather clearly that civil
service and veterans' preference in no sense
impede the' work of this agency.
The American Legion cannot stand by
and permit the proposed disregard of civil
service and veterans' preference procedures.
Present law provides for the separation of
incompetent or otherwise undesirable em-
ployees.
I sincerely urge that you support proposals
to_strike subsections 302(a) (2) and (3)
from H.R. 11380 that will be offered when
the legislation is considered by the Senate.
With personal regards and good wishes, I
am
Sincerely yours,
DANIEL F. FOLEY,
National Commander.
Mr. CARLSON. I also have a letter
from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who
are also greatly concerned about the ac-
tion being taken, and they ask that this
section be stricken and deleted.
I ask unanimous consent to have this
letter printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS,
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
OF THE UNITED STATES,
Kansas City, Mo., July 20, 1964.
Hon. FRANK CARLSON,
Member, Foreign Relations Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CARLSON: It has been a con-
siderable shock to the Veterans of Foreign
Wars to learn that the Foreign Relations
Committee, in reporting the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1964, has reinserted a provision
in the bill which in effect would eliminate
veterans' preference for many veterans em-
ployed in AID.
This provision was thoroughly considered
In open hearings by the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs and after hearing all sides of
the question the committee voted to strike
this provision from the bill. One of the ob-
jections raised by members of the Foreign
Affairs Committee was..that such a sweeping
provision should be referred to the Commit-
tee on Post Office and Civil Service, which
committee deals with civil service legislation
on a day-to-day basis.
May I suggest, therefore, that before the
drastic and final action of repealing a vet-
erans' right, a thorough hearing with an op-
portunity for veterans' organizations and
other interested parties to present our side of
the question would have been a minimum
consideration. It seems unfortunate that
this issue which is almost totally unrelated
to the controversial program of foreign as-
sistance should be made a part of this
legislation.
This is to request, therefore, that section
(j) of section 302, chapter 2, of this bill, H.R.
11380, as found on page 14 starting at line 14
be struck or deleted. It is further requested
that the allegations made in the report of
this bill on page 26 that "AID labors under
unique difficulties and needs this type of
authority," be thoroughly reviewed before the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
964
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 17939
Civil Service and Post Office Committee with
an opportunity for the Veterans of Foreign
ars and other interested organizations to
present the views of veterans who will be ad-
versely affected thereby.
Hoping that favorable consideration will be
given to these views and recommendations
and with best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
FRANCIS W. STOVER,
Director, National Legislative Service.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I also
have a telegram I received from George
Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, and I
wish to read it into the RECORD:
Since the Senate will soon consider H.R.
11380, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, I
should like to call your attention to sections
02(a) (2) and 302(a) (3). These sections
rovide "selection-out" procedures for sepa-
ation of personnel of AID who fail to main-
in "adequate performance levels" and fur-
ther authorize the President to separate up
to 100 employees above grade 12 without re-
gard to the civil service laws. These 'provi-
sions would seriously undermine employee
rights and tenure acquired over many years
nd existing standards and procedures under
he civil service laws insofar as AID em-
loyees are concerned. They would also set
dangerous precedent which could spread
apkIly to other departments and agencies.
In my view existing civil service procedures
are fully adequate to deal with any serious
deficiencies in employee performance which
ay exist. I strongly urge that sections 302
(a) (2) and 302(a) (3) be stricken from H.R.
11380 before this bill is passed by the Senate.
GEORGE MEANY,
President, AFL-CIO.
Mr. President, I sincerely hope that
this provision will be deleted.
EXHIBIT 1
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHNSTON
As chairman of the Post Office and Civil
ervice Committee, I urge the approval of this
amendment of which I am a sponsor to delete
from the Foreign Assistance Act the two pro-
visions exempting the Agency for Interna-
tonal Development from certain provisions
of law in its firing procedures.
In my opinion, these two provisions strike
at the very, heart of the merit system and
seriously threaten some of the basic con-
cepts of the career Federal service.
The first provision would extend to the
AID Administration authority to "select out"
employees of the Agency who have not, in the
opinion of the Agency, maintained a high
level of performance. The Agency proposes
to institute a performance-evaluation system
by which employees to be selected out would
be earmarked for removal. Surely such a pro-
cedure would be ruinous to employee morale
and obviously unfair, since the counterparts
of these employees in other departments and
agencies would be subjected to no such ex-
traordinary scrutiny. All Federal employees
under current law are given performance
ratings, followed by an orderly process by
which improvement is sought in the case of
the low percentage of marginal employees.
Furthermore, all Federal employees must per-
form at an acceptable level of competence if
they are to be awarded their periodic within-
grade salary step increases. This means that
current law already provides for close moni-
toring of the efficiency of Federal employees
on every level. AID employees who do not
meet the requirements of the performance-
rating system can be fired, as can any other
Federal employee, for unsatisfactory work.
As for the acceptable-level-of-competence re-
quirement, I am advised that only one AID
employee within the last year out of its 1,400
classified Federal employees in Washington
was denied a within-grade increase.
It is my strong views that any process
of selecting out career civil service employees
breaks faith with the employees involved
and does violence to agreed-upon civil serv-
ice procedures. In the Foreign Service and
the military services, officers begin their ca-
reers with the clear understanding that they
must move up the ladder of promotion or
be selected out of the service. They are
trained to deal with increasing degrees of
responsibility so that they can meet the
standards expected of them. No such sys-
tem, however, exists in the- career service.
Promotion to positions of increasing re-
sponsibility naturally occurs in the case of
many employees, but no agreement is made
with the employee that unless he progresses
up the ladder of promotion, he will be fired.
It is manifestly unjust to change the rules
of the game by imposing the military and
Foreign Service selection-out procedures
upon employees who entered the. Federal
service with the understanding that their
positions would be reasonably secure.
Furthermore, the selection-out authority
sought overrides the Lloyd-La Follette Act,
the Civil Service Act, and the Veterans Pref-
erence Act, all bulwarks of the merit system.
Thus, under the requested authority, the
employee would have no recourse of appeal
outside of the agency. Established would
be a situation which many of us concerned
with Federal civil service legislation have
long vigorously opposed?the situation in
which the employing agency is both judge
and jury, obviously an inequitable arrange-
ment.
The second proposal would permit the Ad-
ministrator of AID to fire summarily, not
withstanding any other provision of law, a
maximum of 200 employees, 100 a year, for a
period of 2 years.
It would apply to employees in grade 13
and above, FSR-4 and above, and FSS-2 and
above. The Agency states that this authority
would permit the reduction of staff in a
manner which will enable retention of the
best qualified. They are requesting a blank
check from the Congress so that they can
set up an arrangement which they say is
"more suitable to its purposes than the
standard reduction-in-force procedure be-
cause the reduction-in-force procedure does
not permit retention of the best qualified
persons."
It is my view that the Agency in this
assertion ignores the fact that reduction-in-
force procedures have been worked out over
a long period of time to take into account
the employee's years of service and his vet-
erans' preference rights. I do not maintain
that the reduction-in-force process is per-
fect, but I do know that it represents a time-
tested procedure designed to serve the needs
of the Federal service and to protect the
rights of the career employee at the same
time.
The Agency for International Development
and its predecessor agencies have twice in
the recent past requested and received ex-
traordinary firing authority, with the result
that that Agency's reputation as a fair and
equitable employer is certainly not among
the best. Employee morale is low; out of
fear, employees tend to seek the safe path-
way of timid conformity; and promising
young recruits seek employment elsewhere.
Perhaps the ineffectiveness of AID's massive
giveaway program can be traced to its per-
sonnel policies and practices.
If this Agency is to take its place among
the other departments and agencies of the
Federal Government, let it follow the per-
sonnel procedures to which its sister agen-
cies adhere. I see no reason whatever for
making exceptions every few years in the
case of this Agency, which seems to have
developed the habit of dumping its personnel
problems in the lap of the Congress when
the going gets rough.
I strongly urge the deletion of these two
provisions and I recommend to AID that it
try harder to live by the rules. .
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President (Mr.
SALINGER in the chair) , I sympathize
with some of the things the Senator from
Kansas has said but I do not believe they
are applicable to this particular Agency.
It is no secret that this Agency has been
subjected to more criticism than almost
any other agency in government that I
have ever been acquainted with.
I believe everyone feels that the Ad-
ministrator is trying to do a good job.
He asks for some authority to improve
the quality of his administration. Much
criticism has been leveled at the quality
of the administration. It is directed to
that, so that this is not some devious
political scheme to operate capriciously.
I was particularly impressed with the
letter from the Civil Service Commission
itself. The Civil Service Commission cer-
tainly is not intended to destroy the civil
service.
In reply to my routine inquiry as to the
attitude of the Civil Service Commission,
I received a letter dated July 27, 1964,
written by Chairman Macy of the Civil
Service Commission. I shall not read it
all, but I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of this letter be- printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
U.S. critic. SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., July 27, 1964.
Hon. J. W. PULBRIGHT,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to
your request of July 25, 1964, for the views of
the Civil Service Commission on H.R. 11380,
a bill to amend further the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other
purposes.
The Commission endorses section 302(a)
(2) of the bill. It does not object to section
1302 (a) (3) of the bill. It also endorses sec-
tion 302 (b) (1). The Commission has no
views to offer with respect to the other pro-
visions of this bill.
Section 302(a) (2) establishes permanent
authority to separate personnel whose per-
formance does not meet adequate standards.
The authority sought is that commonly re-
ferred to as "selection-out" authority. Its
exercise will require some performance eval-
uation method and a systematic plan to
identify marginal employees. The proposed
authority would have two purposes:
1. Weeding out on a continuing basis those
who "just get by."
2. Eliminating the least competent as the
agency carries out a necessary shrinkage in
its staff.
The Civil Service Commission feels that
the Agency for International Development is
completely unique among Government agen-
cies. The long history of changes in name
and organization of the agencies to which
it is the successor is well known. Through
the whole period there has been an atmos-
phere of emergency, temporary programs,
hasty staffing plans for the purposes of the
moment and sudden and drastic separation
programs. There has been a reluctance on
the part of all concerned to regard foreign
assistance undertakings as a permanent part
of our Federal responsibility. Consequently,
it has been difficult at times to recruit and
retain an adequate number of ideally quali-
fied people. The problem, we believe, has
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R0003000190014-6
17940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August 7
been particularly acute with respect to the
higher grade positions.
The oversea aid programs are peculiarly
complex, each one tends to be highly special-
ized so that readily interchangeable ? staff
members would not be expected as a regular
thing. The programs are also changeable
and uncertain. It is difficult to find people
equipped to handle them at any stage and
even more difficult to find people who can
adapt to continually changing program re-
quirements. The Cominission is persuaded
that the difficulties of these oversea program
operations carry over to central office ad-
ministration. Thus, it seems appropriate to
put the Agency's oversea and domestic em-
ployees on a comparable tenure basis. This
is not a matter of geography, organization,
domestic or foreign assignment. It is
peculiar to the program and mission of the
Agency.
Thus, it is possible to distinguish between
selection-out as applied to the departmental
office of such an Agency and the balance of
the competitive service. Selection-out here
would not necessarily be a precedent, there-
fore, for wholesale application to domestic
employees.
It is our understanding that it is the pres-
ent plan of the Agency for International De-
velopment to limit selection-out of depart-
mental employees to those in the higher
grades. It is in these positions that the
policies are formulated and the major pro-
grams administered. It is among these peo-
ple that the problems of skills and special-
ization becoming outmoded ? because of
changing programs are especially concen-
trated. The inescapable hardship would be
alleviated to some degree by up to a full
year's severance pay. We think this is a
helpful and important provision.
Finally, with respect to selection out, we
are persuaded that continuing authority of
this type would eliminate the need for future
?special separation programs such as would
be authorized by section 302(a) (3).
Section 302(a) (3) authorizes a special pro-
gram to separate a maximum of 100 people
in each of ? the next 2 years. It permits
avoidance of civil service reduction-in-force
procedures. The authority would be exer-
cised without regard to the Veterans' Pref-
erence Act or the Lloyd-LaFollette Act. No
appeal would be provided by the law but
it is our understanding that the Agency for
International Development plans to set up a
system of administrative checks and an ad-
ministrative appeal. We are sure the com-
mittee will be given details about this by
Agency representatives.
There are several other reasons why the
Commission does not object to one more ex-
ercise by a foreign assistance organization of
the broad removal authority contained in
this provision. The authority strictly
limited to the higher level policymaking and
policy-controlling positions mentioned in
connection with the need for selection out.
It is not a scheme for wholesale arbitrary
removals. Procedures are being established
at the same time which should avoid a re-
currence of need for this authority. The
spacing provided for the exercise of this
authority and the 2-year limitation on it
-strike a good balance between the need for
some prompt action and for deliberate pru-
dent use of the power. Some of the diffi-
culties attendant upon the use of somewhat
comparable authority when the Agency for
International Development was founded
might be attributed to the fact that all ac-
tions had to be completed within 60 days of
the grant of the authority.
All of the circumstances of the bill give
us confidence that the Agency for Inter-
national Development will exercise the au-
thorities it seeks in careful accordance with
its intention to treat its people fairly.
Finally, the Commission endorses section
302(b) (1) which would authorize a maxi-
mum payment of $100 a day for experts and
consultants rather than the present $75.
This is consistent with the authority now
held by a large number of other agencies.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that
from the standpoint of the administration's
program there is no objection to the submis-
sion of this report.
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
JOHN W. MACY, Jr.,
Chairman.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
should like to quote some significant pas-
sages.
He writes:
The Civil Service Commission feels that
the Agency for International Development is
completely unique among Government agen-
cies. The long history of changes in name
and organization of the agencies to which it
is the successor is well known. * *
There has been a reluctance on the past of
all concerned to regard foreign assistance un-
dertakings as a permanent part of our Fed-
eral responsibility. Consequently, it has
been difficult at times to recruit and retain an
adequate number of ideally qualified people.
The problem, we believe, has been particu-
larly acute with respect to the higher grade
positions.
The record cited by the Senator from
Kansas about the great turnover, not
only in the administrators but also in the
directors of personnel, reinforces the
point that they have been confronted
with an impossible task, not only because
of the mission given to the Agency, but
also because of its inability to improve
the quality of its administration.
This is really a very modest request So
far as separation of only a hundred a
year for 2 years is concerned. This is an
effort to improve the quality of the man-
agerial staff.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Arkansas yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Am I correct in inter-
preting this section to mean that this
provision applies to employees above
grade 12 and below grade 15? As I re-
call, the appointments in grades 15 to 18
are political appointments?subject to
removal.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Grades 16 to 18.
Mr. AIKEN. Grades 16 to 18.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I believe that is
correct.
Mr. AIKEN. The provision which was
written into the bill by the committee
does not apply to persons in grade 12 or
below?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is
correct.
On page 14?
Mr. AIKEN. It would apply only to
grades 13, 14, and 15?three grades?is
that correct?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is the way I
read it. I believe that is correct.
Mr. AIKEN. What type of employees
would we be likely to find in grades 13,
14, and 15?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am not suffi-
ciently acquainted with the facts to
know the type of persons in those par-
ticular grades. I ?confess that I am not
an expert on personnel practices of the
agency. That is why I place a great
deal of credence in the recommendations
of the Civil Service Commission itself.
Mr. AIKEN. Perhaps the Senator
from Kansas could tell us what type of
employees would be likely to be found
in grades 13, 14, and 15?
Mr. CARLSON. It is a difficult prob-
lem. The aid program has for some
years been given to "selection-out," if we
wish to use those words?that is, as ap-
plied to Foreign Service employees.
There has never been any question about
Foreign Service employees.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator
means those serving abroad?
Mr. CARLSON. They work in the
Foreign Service: They are political ap-
pointees. They are selected. They are
not career employees. They can be ed-
ucators or people we send overseas in
the various types of aid programs. The
question is, Are we going to go so far
as to make the same provisions with
respect to typists, communication clerks,
motor pool service supervisors, and many
other types? Another question might
be: How far do we wish to go in dealing
with the civil service? A Foreign Service
officer is one thing, but this would be the
first time we have given the agency au-
thority to "selection-out" without ques-
tion, without veterans' preference, with-
out all these protections to which civil
service employees are entitled.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator will
admit that they perform the same type
of work as Foreign Service people. What
the Agency is asking for is precisely what
it now has with regard to "selection-out"
applicable to Foreign Service officers. -
Mr. AIKEN. I do not understand that
employees in grades 13, 14, and 15 are
political appointees. In grades 16, 17,
and 18 they certainly are.
Mr. CARLSON. They would be For-
eign Service officers. To get back to
grade 12?
Mr. AIKEN. Grades 13, 14, and 15
would not be political appointees.
Mr. CARLSON. They are civil serv-
ice employees that the AID people have
moved from one agency to another
agency, and they have been requested to
come from one agency of Government
into the AID program.
Now they want to have authority to
throw those people out. I think it would
be a mistake to do it. I am opposed to
it for that very reason. When we are
dealing with civil service, we must be
very careful and cautious about protect-
ing our civil service employees and pro-
tecting their rights. If we do it for this
program, why do we not do it for other
agencies?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. For the reason
that Mr. Macy gives. The program ad-
ministered by AID is unlike any other
program. That is the main reason.
This Agency is of such a type that I be-
lieve it justifies a procedure which is dif-
ferent from the usual agency.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I can un-
derstand the fears of those who feel that
if this provision is approved it might be
used in an election year to eliminate Re-
publicans from holding jobs in AID. But
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE .
hen the Senator from Kansas read
eorge Meany's letter protesting this
? rovision in the bill, I could not recon-
ile his protest with the fears of those
ho would protect the good Republi-
ans. I could not conceive of George
eany going to that length to keep jobs
or Republicans.
If the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARL-
ON] had not read that letter, I would
ave understood the situation a little
? etter. I am supposed to understand it,
a member of the committee. There is
severe contradiction somewhere.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. As a general prop-
sition, it seems to me that this Agency
as conditions quite different from those
? f the ordinary Government agency, op-
rating domestically.
Mr. AIKEN. Why should there be a
ifference of three grades?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The staff calls my
ttention to the fact that this is the Sep-
ration authority which is mentioned on
age 14:
The authority contained in this subsection
hall not apply to persons with general
chedule appointments of grade 12 or below,
oreign Service reserve appointments of
lass 5 or below, or Foreign Service staff
ppointments of class 3 or below.
This is the separation authority. It is
or merely 2 years, at the rate of 100 per-
ons a year. It is a very limited time
nd amount.
The testimony, as I recall, is that they
re interested primarily in improving,
r upgrading, the caliber of employees
n what we call the managerial grades.
hey are interested in trying to im-
rove the administration of the Service.
e separation authority is for only 2
ears.
Mr. AIKEN. They have been subject-
d to rather severe criticism for having
competent employees.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. They have been
ubjected to severe criticism every time
bill has come up. I know of no
gency that has received such severe
riticism for maladministration. Then,
hen they say, "Give us the tools to im-
rove management," we say, "No, you
ust operate just as the other agencies."
The morale in the Agency has been
? ery bad because of the criticism by Con-
ress. The criticism usually takes the
orm of saying that they are no good as
dministrators, and that the Agency has
? een poorly administered.
Therefore, I believe that the employ-
ees do not want to stay there. We have
ad great difficulty in employing the
Administrator. The present one, for
horn I have great respect, was drafted
out of the Budget Bureau. President
Kennedy drafted him to go over there.
The record will show that when asked:
"Did you apply for this job?" he stated,
"By no means. I did not apply for it.
I was told to go over there., And, as a
good soldier, I went."
We have had every indication that
there is something wrong with the
Agency's personnel system. They sug-
gest that they be given some limited
authority on separation. There is a
great outcry about it. The Civil Service
Commission itself said this is not neces-
sarily a precedent for any other domestic
agency. It is consistent only with the
practices in the Foreign Service.
I must confess, with all due respect
for the concern expressed, that we ought
to allow the Agency to improve itself
and, in some way, defend itself against
the unrestricted severe criticism to
which it is subjected every year. There
has been more investigation and more
complaint about this Agency than any
other six agencies in the whole Govern-
ment. I believe the Senator from Kan-
sas .[Mr. CARLSON] will agree to that.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. CARLSON. I am not insensitive
to the problems of AID employees.
Dealing with the program and its per-
sonnel, I wonder who these people are.
I well remember when the Kennedy ad-
ministration first came into power.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. According to my
understanding, they were inherited from
the old ECA and other predecessor agen-
cies. They have gone on and on. I do
not know who hired them. I do not
know the individuals concerned.
Mr. CARLSON. The Senator does
know this. In our committee, the Sena-
tor will remember how we discussed the
presence in this Agency of a man who
was recognized as one of the outstand-
ing personnel experts in the country,
Roger Jona The RECORD will show the
speeches made on the floor of the Senate
about Roger Jones. He was a good per-
sonnel man. He did not last long. What
did he do? He went over to the Justice
Department.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. He was in the
State Departnient. He was not in AID.
Mr. CARLSON. He came to the State
Department. But he went into AID. I
know of the program. I discussed it
with him. They went to the Justice De-
partment and got a personnel man there,
and sent him over to AID. He was not
a good personnel man. Then one won-
ders where they get some of these people,
when they discharge some of them who
are under civil service, who have been
requested from other agencies. He went
over there to help them. I cannot agree
to going along with this proposal.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is in
error about the personnel director. He
was in the State Department. AID has
its own personnel director. It is not un-
der the State Department personnel di-
rector. This is a big agency.
Mr. CARLSON. I will let the RECORD
stand on that matter. I will let any-
one go back to the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD of 1960 and read the statements by
the Senator from Kansas and others
about what a great improvement there
would be in the AID program. I know
Roger Jones. I have visited with him.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is it not true that
he was in the State Department?
Mr. CARLSON. But he had charge
of personnel?or he thought he did?in
AID. He went over there with that
thought.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does not AID have
its own personnel department?
Mr. CARLSON. They do now.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what I
meant.
17941
With regard to the 1,200 that the Sen-
ator mentioned in the reduction in force,
is it not true that half of those are not
Americarns? They are chauffeurs and
other personnel of that sort. They are
foreigners, and they account for half of
the proposed decrease in personnel.
What the Agency is trying to do is to
adopt itself first to the reduction in its
size which has been brought about by
Congress and the administration. They
must shrink. Naturally, in this process,
they would like to have authority to keep
their best people. Under the provisions
of civil service, they would have to get
rid of their better ones, in many cases,
and keep those who are senior, who are
barely able to qualify, but are not qual-
ity people. This is limited to the separa-
tion of 100 people a year for 2 years
That does not seem like a very drastic
? measure.
Mr. CARLSON. The Senator has
stated that it is desired to eliminate
100 people.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. One hundred em-
ployees a year for 2 years.
Mr. CARLSON. So does every other
agency. There is no agency in the Gov-
ernment that would not like to move out
a few employees. But the civil service
protects the employees. It _cannot be
done in this way.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not know of
any other agency that has been sub-
jected to the criticism that this Agency
has received, particularly on adminis-
tration.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for
a good many years, and perhaps even
still, the employees of AID have seldom
if ever seen the United States. They -
make a profession of working for AID,
the ECA, the Marshall plan, or whatever
agency is involved. I recall that on trips,
to Europe, year after year, I would see
some of the same people. I asked some
of them when they had been back to the
United States. Some of ,them had not
been back for 10 years.
I recall when Fowler Hamilton came
into the organization. He was supposed
to be given some authority to clean out
the deadwood at the top. The first I
knew people were coming around to
practically every Senator asking us to
intercede for them. I admit that one
or two persons from Montana came to
see me. I do not know what happened
in respect to the intercession. But I
believe that there is an opportunity to
clean out a great deal of deadwood which
has been with this agency for too many
years.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is all the
agency is trying to do. I think it is
quite inconsisten of us to criticize the
AID administration as severely as we do
every year. The request that has been
made is the first such request that I
recall seeing in recent years. Then we
say, "No, you cannot do it. You must
abide by the rigid civil service laws."
Above all, the Civil Service Commis-
sion itself has said very positively that
the proposal is a good thing and that it
approves. If anyone should be con-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
17942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --: SENATE
cerned about the integrity of the civil
service, it is the Commission.
The Commissioner approves of it. He
recognizes the problem. AID is a unique
agency. It would not be a precedent for
other similar agencies. AID ought to
be given this limited authority.
Mr. President, I hope that the Senate
will allow the provision to go to con-
ference at least. It is not in the House
bill. We can put it in the bill and let
it go to conference. It may be that some
further limitation by way of adminis-
trative procedure, such as a panel for
evaluation, which has been discussed, can
be worked out. It would be much better
that the provision go to conference, and
that we try to work it out in conference.
I have an open mind about a panel which
would include a public member for the
evaluation of the people involved, if that
is of interest. But the principle of al-
lowing the agency to have the right seems
to me to be very much deserved by Mr.
Bell. I believe everyone agrees that he
is trying to do a good job in the struggle
which he has. It is a difficult and thank-
less job.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator will
recall that when the subject was first
brought up in the hearings, I raised some
question about it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I remember.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator from
Kansas did also. The Senator will recall
that when Mr. Bell and his associates
testified before the committee?unfortu-
nately the Senator. from Kansas [Mr.
CARLSON] could not be present at that
time?I went quite thoroughly into the
question as to protections to be thrown
around employees, in order to make cer-
tain that they would not be railroaded.
The Senator will recall that we were
assured that employees would be given
notice, the right to appeal, and pretty
much the same procedures as are fol-
lowed under the civil service. Veterans'
rights were to be respected as they are
in other agencies. I am not sure that
I told the' Senator from Kansas about
that after he came back, but I felt quite
reassured by the testimony that we had
from Mr. Bell regarding the protection
of the employees, to make certain that
there would not be a severe and ruthless
cutting off of personnel. ?
I believe there is a great deal of merit
in what the chairman has suggested.
Perhaps we have not arrived at perfec-
tion in language, but in the conference
committee that could be worked out, as
the chairman points out. There is no
such provision in the House bill, so it
would be a wide-open provision.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes; it would be a
wide-open conference on that point. I
would be openminded, if the House
wished written into the bill some lan-
guage along the line proposed by the
Senator. Mr. Bell stated to us what
they proposed to do.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think it is
proper to pring the provision before the
Senate and for the Senate to decide
whether or not on principle it is willing
to adopt the provision. Undoubtedly we
shall have to make some compromise
with the House anyway.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. CARLSON. With regard to the
question of how much authority we
would be giving the President, I point
out that what we are discussing is what
may happen in the future. The bill
provides:
(j) The President is authorized, at any
time during the two-year period commenc-
ing on the effective date of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1964, to separate, notwith-
standing any other provision of this or any
other law, any person employed or assigned
to perform duties pursuant to this Act.
Mr. FULBRIGHT., That is not all of
it. There are qualifications.
Mr. CARLSON. I shall read the re-
mainder of the provision:
The authority contained in this subsec-
tion shall not apply to persons with Gen-
eral Schedule appointments of grade 12 or
below, Foreign Service Reserve appointments
of class 5 or below, or Foreign Service Staff
appointments of class 3 or below, or to per-
sons employed under section 624(d) of this
Act. The aggregate number of persons
separated under this subsection shall not
exceed one hundred in any twelve-month
period.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is the lan-
guage I wished the Senator to read.
The President would not be called upon
to fire everyone. The provision is
limited, and it is intended to allow him
to upgrade the quality of his top people.
It is as simple as that. I ?do not know
what more I can say. The principle in-
volved is clear. I am ready to vote.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have a
few questions that I should like to ask
the Senator from Kansas. I do not
think the provision should go to con-
ference, if I correctly understand it.
There are some pretty basic principles
that ought to be taken under very care-
ful study on a much broader plane be-
tween now and next year, and we should
continue the procedure that presently
prevails. But so that I may be abso-
lutely sure in my understanding of the
amendment of the Senator from Kansas,
I should like to ask him the following
questions: Am I correct in my under-
standing that the Director of AID seeks
authority to separate over a 2-year
period a total number of 200 Federal
employees now working for AID?
Mr. CARLSON. That is correct.
Mr. MORSE. Am I correct in my
understanding that if the bill in its pres-
ent form in the Senate passes, he would
have that authority to separate such em-
ployees, even though some or all of them
might be civil service employees?
Mr. CARLSON. He would have au-
- thority to separate any of the 200 em-
ployees without regard to any existing
laws. The language that my ? amend-
ment seeks to strike is plain.
Mr. MORSE. It includes the civil
service laws.
Mr. CARLSON. And veterans pref-
erence laws.
August !
Mr. MORSE. That means that the
Director would have the authority tc
separate employees appointed in the first
place in part on the basis of their vet-
erans preference qualifications?
Mr. CARLSON. That is absolutely
correct.
Mr. MORSE. Fourth, he is seeking tc
have authority to separate employees
who, if they were civil service employees
would have certain rights without being
required to follow the procedures that
the civil service employees are entitled
to have followed before separation, and
irrespective of their civil service rights
Mr. CARLSON. These two authoriz
ations, if approved, would deny to th
employees of the AID program the du
process of laws provisions or right
possessed by all Federal workers; namely
the Lloyd-La Follette Act, the Veteran
Preference Act, and the Civil Service and
Foreign Service Acts, which would in
volve also the right to written charges
appeals to the CSC, seniority or veteran
retention rights and for career job pro-
tection. That is how far this proposa
goes.
Mr. MORSE. The language which th
Senator from Kansas has read mean
that the Director of AID, in respect t
un to 200 employees, wants authorit
to ignore the legal procedural protca
tions that civil service employees are no
entitled to?
Mr. CARLSON. That is one of the read
sons I am concerned about it. That i
the reason I am opposing it. That is th4
reason I offered my amendment.
Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator fron
Kansas agree with the Senator from Ore
gon, in reply to the argument that w
have heard expressed on, the floor of th
Senate that only a maximum of 200 em
ployees would be involved, that if A hap
pens to be one of the 200, that is prett
vital to A?
Mr. CARLSON. Of course. I think
goes further than merely the authori
to discharge employees in the AID pro
gram. It would set a pattern for th
first time which would permit the head
of an agency, the employer, to make ap
plication again for the same privileges i
the agency.
It is a dangerous thing for the civi
service system of the Nation.
Mr. MORSE. I shall come to that point
in a moment.
It involves only 200. Will the Senator
agree with me that that is a very unac-
ceptable argument to give consideration
to if we are looking to do justice to each
individual we have taken into the civil
service? Each one was told, when he was
taken into the civil service, that we
would give him certain procedural pro-
tections with regard to separation from
the service; and that the separation
would be based on cause as shown
through applicable procedures of separa-
tion.
Mr. CARLSON. Every one of our Fed-
eral workers feels that he has such pro-
tection. They do have it. I hope it
will always be preserved.
Mr. MORSE. Was not a commitment
of the Federal Government made to those
employees when the Government hired
them?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA7RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. CARLSON. There is no question
about it. ?
Mr. MORSE. And we seek to take that
guarantee and commitment away from
them now by the proposed legislation?
Mr. CARLSON. If we approve this
section, we do.
Mr. MORSE. Am I correct in my un-
derstanding that Mr. Bell seeks to soften
the blow by saying, in effect, that the
procedures of separation that will be
followed if this provision of the bill which
the Senator from Kansas is seeking to
amend is allowed to remain in the bill,
are procedures that prevail with regard
to the separation of Foreign Service
officers?
Mr. CARLSON. We gave such author-
ity in years gone by. But these are civil
service employees. The others are For-
eign Service officers. There is a dis-
tinction between the two. Now the same
authority is asked with respect to civil
service employees.
Mr. MORSE. Let me see if I under-
stand. In effect, Mr. Bell is seeking to
apply the same procedures for separa-
tion to the present civil service employ-
ees that now prevail in regard to the
separation of Foreign Service officers.
Mr. CARLSON. That is correct.
Mr. MORSE. My next question is, Is
It true that the Foreign Service officer
separation procedures are not conSid-
ered by Federal employees on civil serv-
ice to be as protective of their interests
and rights as the procedures with re-
spect to civil service employees?
Mr. CARLSON. We have been work-
ing for years to write civil service proce-
dures, with regard to civil service em-
ployees, that will give them the right of
hearing and appeal, and other proce-
dures that would protect them.
Mr. MORSE. Next, in order to em-
phasize in the RECORD the position of the
Senator from Kansas, as I understand
It?and I wholeheartedly agree with
him?if Congress approves of the lan-
guage in the bill and permits this prece-
dent to be established, it will, in effect,
be undermining the whole civil service
structure as it now exists.
Mr. CARLSON. I think it would have
grave effect on the morale of Federal
employees if we should approve this bill
as written.
Mr. MORSE. If we do it in this case,
in the next bill which comes before us
we can do it for another segment of civil
service employees, and another and an-
other. That will be the hue and cry, will
it not?
Mr. CARLSON. That is my conten-
tion, as I pointed out in my presenta-
tion. This is the first step in giving the
departments the right to remove civil
service employees without regard to all
the provisions we have written to protect
them.
Mr. MORSE. Is it the opinion of the
Senator from Kansas, as it is mine, that
the major reason for the strenuous ob-
jections on the part of Mr. Meany, rep-
' resenting labor, and on the part of civil
service organizations, and other de-
fenders of the civil service system, is that
they fear the very point the Senator from
Kansas makes?that it is the beginning
No. 153-12
of the undermining of the civil service
system?
Mr. CARLSON. Not only have the
organizations the Senator has' men-
tioned so expressed themselves, but so
have the American Legion and the Vet-
erans of Foreign Wars. I placed their
letters in the RECORD.
Mr. MORSE. Lastly, does the Senator
from Kansas agree with the Senator
from Oregon that the raising of this
Issue has been beneficial at least to the
extent that it shows the desirability, in
the next session of Congress, not only
of having Congress deal with this prob-
lem, in connection with foreign aid, but
perhaps emphasizes the need to look at
the civil service law and the problems in-
volved from the standpoint of its totality,
and not merely from the standpoint of
giving the director of this agency dis-
cretionary power that is not available to
any other agency that has civil service
employees on its payroll?
Mr. CARLSON. That is correct.
Mr. MORSE. The question ought to
he postponed until next year and be con-
sidered, not in connection with foreign
aid, but in connection with general leg-
islation.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, this is
a matter that should have been before
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. It is a problem that belongs in
that committee, instead of in the Foreign
Relations Committee.
I have every reason to believe that had
It been presented to the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, the Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. JoririsTori] ,
some changes and recommendations
would have been proposed. I have before
me his statement supporting the elimi-
nation of this amendment. I received
permission to put the statement of the
Senator in the RECORD.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
shall take a very few moments. I made
reference to my questioning of Mr. Bell
with reference to this proposal, a pro-
posal I frowned upon or had my doubts
about. I call attention to the question-
ing of Mr. Bell, beginning on page 360
of the hearings. It was on page 363 that
I asked him particularly about these
procedures.
We were given assurance that every
aspect of the Veterans Preference Act
would be protected and observed and
that the same thing was true with ref-
erence to procedures and notice and
rights of persons to know of the reports
that were given to them in their efficiency
reports?whatever one might call them?
and also to appear and be heard.
That testimony is all set out in these
few pages.
Then Mr. Bell, at our request, sub-
mitted the proposed regulations. They
are the regulations that affect the For-
eign Service Reserve officers. As the
Senator from Kansas pointed out, the
bulk of the employees come from that
category. There are regulations cover-
ing procedures for the foreign Service
Reserve officers. Those regulations are
found commencing at page 364. They
17943
are the same regulations that will cover
these employees.
With reference to this question being
referred to the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, the Senator from
Kansas knows that in the past we have
dealt with problems of this kind in con-
nection with foreign aid. We have dealt
with it in the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee. I recall that several years ago
we had a rather knotty problem, and we
referred it specifically to the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service. We
asked the committee's advice on that
particular procedure. In this instance
the committee was quite well pleased
with the testimony given by Mr. Bell that
every protection would be thrown around
the employees. Therefore the provision
was left in the bill. We would be per-
fectly safe in taking it to conference.
Perhaps the Senator from Kansas, along
with some of his colleagues on the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
would be able to deal with the question
after he has studied the hearings.
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, it
seems to me that we have been going up
and down the hill. We receive assur-
ances from the distinguished Senator
from Alabama that all possible protec-
tions will be thrown around these peo-
ple. If that is the case, why do we need
it? It seems to me, there is no indication
as to who is to be discharged. I under-
stand that under the civil service law the
Government can get rid of employes who
are not performing satisfactorily in their
jobs, who are violating their orders, or
neglecting their work, or who are repeat-
edly doing what they are not supposed
to do. The Civil Service Commission
does not keep such persons. I do not
know why the Civil Service Commission
needs any more authority.
Perhaps these people are trying to get
rid of some employees who are not in the
category of employees who are dis-
charged for the reasons that they are dis-
charged.
We have assurances from the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations that all civil
service protections will be thrown around
these people.
We are back where we started. The
Government can get- rid of incompetent
people, and people who are not able to do
the job to which they have been assigned.
If they are not qualified to do the work,
they can be discharged.
It seems to me we are going up and
down the hill. I might say that I am
just as much confused as I was before
the debate started, if not more so.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, it is not
often that I find myself in disagreement
with the distinguished Senator from
Michigan. However, I wish to state
briefly why I oppose the amendment.
Two years ago I was in Seoul, South
Korea, where the administration of the
foreign aid program had become some-
thing of a scandal. So large was the
number of personnel involved, so ineffi-
cient had the operation become, that it
was pointed out as a horrible example of
administrative incompetence, to the de-
gree that the AID people sent their prin-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
17944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
cipal trouble shooter to Korea to try to
correct the situation.
I met that man. He was being lauded
to the skies when I was there, because
he had had the courage to cut the per-
sonnel 50 percent. Everyone was ap-
plauding his action. The comment was
general that efficiency had increased sig-
nificantly with this drastic cut-back in
personnel.
I came back to this country and sang
the praises of this trouble shooter, who
had the gumptiori to cut the staff in
Korea in half.
I remember telling that story in Wash-
ington to some of the administrators of
the AID program. When I was finished,
they replied, "Yes, it is true he cut the
staff 50 percent. It is true that the pro-
gram in Korea is better handled than it
had ever been before. However, all the
personnel that we cut from the rolls over
there are in Washington today, and we
are trying to find a pigeon hole for them,
trying to find make-work for them in the
AID in Washington."
That is an example of why the present
system is not working. We have cut
back the AID program from $4.5 billion
to $3.4 billion. It is obvious that there
must be a curtailment in personnel if we
are to realize full economy. We must
use the funds remaining for the most
expeditious purpose. I believe that the
AID administration is greatly in need of
the selecting-out procedure. Such a pro-
cedure obtains in the Foreign Service.
Such a procedure has worked well there.
I believe that we only contribute to the
padding of personnel in AID if we fail
to adopt the provision the committee has
found warranted for this bill.
The AID itself has given fine justifi-
cation for including this particular pro-
vision.
I ask unanimous consent that a mem-
orandum in justification for the select-
ing.out provision in the bill be included
In the RECORD at this point in my re-
marks.
There being no objection, the memo-
randum was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as, follows:
FACTS ON SELECTION OUT
The Agency for International Development
is essentially a foreign operations agency
with a wide variety of programs underway
in some 75 countries around the world. By
its very nature, its ? operations are diverse
and its requirements for skilled personnel
both in Washington and the field vary greatly
over relatively short time periods. If AID
is to meet its needs for, skilled and spe-
cialized staff to carry out its foreign opera-
tions, it is essential that the management
of AID be given the same flexible autherity
for selecting out less qualified personnel
on its Washington headquarters staff as it
now has for its foreign service personnel.
Selection out has been in the Foreign
Assistance Act since its inception. A similar
/ system has been in effect for many years
with respect to career Foreign Service officers
of the State Department.
Authority to select out employees whose
performance is marginal would thus permit
AID to apply the same high standards of
performance to its careertclassified employees
as it now does with respect to its Foreign
Service employees.
NORMAL PROCEDURES INADEQUATE TO MEET
PROBLEM
Present procedures are not adequate to
accomplish the selection out process needed
by the Agency, becnuse they do not apply
to marginal employees. A marginal em-
ployee is one whose performance does not
measure up to the high standards which
the complexities and sensitivities of the
foreign aid program demand. His perform-
ance is considered inadequate but is not at
such a level that he could be rated as un-
satisfactory under normal procedures pre-
scribed by civil service regulations.
Similarly, reduction in force regulations
also are inadequate to accomplish the de-
sired objective, because they frequently do
not permit retention of the best qualified
personnel. Normal RIF procedures operate
for the most part on a seniority basis, i.e.,
employees with the least service, despite their
level of performance, are the first to be
separated. Because of the changing needs of
the AID program, there are situations in
which some employees with little or no
seniority are actually better suited than
others with greater seniority. Because of
the bumping rights of the latter group,
many desirable employees of the former
group would have to be separated, unless
AID is permitted selection out authority.
SELECTION OUT IS NO NEW AUTHORITY
The selection out process is no innovation.
AID has had this authority with respect to
its Foreign Service personnel since November
3, 1961. It has been used by the military
services and the State Department's Foreign
Service for many years. Within AID it has
been administered cautiously and to the sat-
isfaction of the Agency and employees alike.
It has provided a means for separating em-
ployees whose performance is marginal but
is not so deficient as to warrant their sepa-
ration for cause.
What is now being requested is simply an
extension of the present selection out author-
ity to all departmental employees of the
Agency. Such authority will thus place both
departmental service and Foreign Service em-
ployees of AID on a comparable basis with
respect to maintenance of high standards of
performance. Departmental service employ-
ees who are selected out will be entitled to
the same severance benefits to which Foreign
Service employees are entitled, and essentially
the same procedures to safeguard the in-
terest of AID and the employees affected will
apply, including provisions for administra-
tive appeals.
WHAT SAFEGUARDS WILL EMPLOYEES HAVE UNDER
SELECT/ON otrr?
The selection out program will be admin-
istered With great care and equity, utilizing
essentially the same procedures as presently
apply to selection out of Foreign Service per-
sonnel. All separations under it will be
fully documented. Regulations which will
be issued for administering the authority will
include provisions for:
1. Recommendations by key administra-
tive officials as to which employees under
their direction should be separated, together
with specific reasons in support of their
recommenCations.
2. Central agency review of each proposal
to separate, to assure that it is adequately
documented and is appropriate under the
special separation authority.
3. Notification to the employee of the pro-
posal to separate him and the reasons why
the action is proposed.
4. An opportunity for the employee to re-
spond to the proposed separation and to ob-
tain a review of his response.
5. A central-independent agency review of
the employee's response and a, final agency
decision regarding the proposed separation
based on this review.
August 7
WILL SELECTION OUT ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT
FOR OTHER AGENCIES?
The authority requested will not consti-
tute a precedent for application to other
civil service agencies. This is so because
AID is a unique agency whose employees are
concerned with a program that for any one
country or program is basically temporary
and in a constant state of transition.
Mr. John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, U.S. Civil
Service Commission, in a letter of April 14,
1964, to Chairman THOMAS E. MORGAN,
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, indi-
cating Commission approval of selection out
for AID, stated:
"The Civil Service Commission feels that
the Agency for International Development
is completely unique among Government
agencies * * *. The oversea aid programs
are peculiarly complex, each one tends to
be highly specialized so that readily inter-
changeable staff members would not be ex-
pected as a regular thing. The programs are
also changeable and uncertain. It is diffi-
cult to find people equipped to handle them
at any stage and even more difficult to find
people who can adapt to continually chang-
ing program requirements. The Commission
Is persuaded that the difficulties of these
oversee program operations carry over to
central office administration. Thus, it seems
appropriate to put the Agency's oversee and
domestic employees on a comparable tenure
basis. This is not a matter of geography,
organization, domestic or foreign assign-
ment. It is peculiar to the program and
mission of the Agency.
"Thus, it is possible to distinguish between
selection-out as applied to the departmental
office of such an agency and the balance of
the competitive service. Selection-out here
would not necessarily be a percedent, there-
fore, for wholesale application to domestic
employees.
"There are several other reason why the
Commission does not object * * * to the
broad removal authority contained in this
provision. The authority is strictly limited
to the higher level policymaking and policy-
controlling positions mentioned in connec-
tion with the need for selection-out. It is,
not a scheme for wholesale arbitrary re-
movals."
Assurance that selection-out authority
will not be used arbitrarily has also repeat-
edly been given by AID Administrator David
Bell. In discussing his request for this au-
thority before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations on June 19, 1964, Mr. Bell
stated:
"Careful consideration will be given at the
highest levels of the Agency to the circum-
stances in which these authorities are used.
All actions will be fully documented and
justified and employees affected will have
appropriate Agency appeal rights. We ex- _
pect it could affect but two percent of our
American employees.
"This is a small number and reflects my
strong feeling that the vast majority of AID
employees are capable, devoted, and hard
working."
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I believe
the Senator from Idaho has given a con-
vincing argument as to why the whole
matter ought to be gone into by the com-
mittee headed by the Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], instead
of having the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations seeking to trespass upon the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service. If what the
Senator from Idaho says is true, we had
better examine into the whole matter
through the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, and not through the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Kan-
sas [Mr. CARLSON] . The yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. BREWSTER (when his name was
called) ." On this vote I have a live pair
with the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL]. If he were present and vot-
ing, he would vote "nay." If I were at
liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I
therefore withhold my vote.
Mr. METCALF (after having voted in
the negative) . On this vote I have a
pair with the Senator from South Caro-
lina [Mr. JOHNSTON] . If he were pres-
ent, he would vote "yea." If I were at
liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I
withhold my vote.
The rollcall was concluded.
Mr. H'UMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN],
the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL],
the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACK-
SON], the Senator from South Carolina
[Mr. JOHNSTON], the Senator from Ohio
[Mr. LAUSCHE], the Senator from Louisi-
ana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Moss], the Senator from Maine
[Mr. Music's], the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Florida
[Mr. SMATHERS] , the Senator from Geor-
gia [Mr. TALMADGE ], the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS] , and the Sen-
ator from Ohio [Mr. Yourro] are absent
on official business.
I further announce that the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] and
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AN-
DERSON] are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] is absent be-
cause of illness in the family.
I further announce that the Senator
from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND-
SON], the Senator from West Virginia
[Mr. RANDOLPH] , the Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. SYmnvoroN], the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the
Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON] are
necessarily absent.
On this vote, the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. SCOTT], is paired with the
Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] . If
present and voting, the Senator from
Pennsylvania would vote "yea" and the
Senator from Virginia would vote "nay."
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Washington
[Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Louisi-
ana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] and the Sen-
ator from Ohio [Mr. Yoima] would each
vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLDWATER],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] ,
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
SCOTT], and the Senator from Texas
[Mr. TOWER] are necessarily absent.
The Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Dommicx] is detained on official busi-
ness.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] and the Sen-
ator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] would
each vote "yea."
On this vote, the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. SCOTT] is paired with the
Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD]. If
present and voting, the Senator from
Pennsylvania would vote "yea" and the
Senator from Virginia would vote "nay."
The result was announced-yeas 27,
nays 44, as follows:
[No. 522 Leg.]
Allott
Beall
Bennett
Boggs
Carlson
Cotton
Curtis
Dirksen
Fong
Aiken
Bartlett
Bayh
Bible
Burdick
Byrd, W. Va.
Case
Church
Cooper
Dodd
Douglas
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Fulbright
Anderson
Brewster
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Clark
YEAS-27
Hart
Hruska
Javits
Keating
Kuchel
McCarthy
McGee
McNamara
Miller
NAYS-44
Monroney
Morse
Mundt
Pell
Prouty
Proxmire
Saltonstall
Smith
Williams, Del.
Gore Mechem
Gruening Morton
Hartke Nelson
Iiickenlooper Neuberger
Holland Pastore
Humphrey Ribicoff
Inouye Robertson
Jordan, N.C. Salinger
Jordan, Idaho Simpson
Long, Mo. Sparkman
Magnuson Stennis
Mansfield Thurmond'
McClellan Williams, N.J.
McGovern Young, N. Dak.
McIntyre
NOT VOTING-29
Dominick Jackson
Edmondson Johnston
Goldwater Kennedy
Hayden Lausche
Hill Long, La.
AID assistance to Latin America by function, fiscal year 195,9 to
[Dollars in millions]
Metcalf
Moss
Muskie
Pearson
Randolph
Russell
Scott
Smathers
Symington
Talmadge .
17945
Tower
Walters
Yarborough
Young, Ohio
? So Mr. CARLSON'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. FLTLBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate reconsider the vote
by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
USE OF ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, for the past
2 years, I have taken the occasion of the
debate over foreign aid authorization to
call attention to the manner in which
our foreign aid funds are spent, particu-
larly under the Alliance for Progress.
Specifically, I have sought each year to
report on the degree to which foreign
aid moneys have been used for the long
range developmental purposes which lie
at the heart of the Alliance for Progress
program--as opposed to what I regard as
the misuse of such funds for every day, -
stopgap purposes such as direct budget
support and balance-of-payments assist-
ance.
Last year, I was able to report encour-
aging progress. Balance-of-payments
assistance, which had risen to a level of
33 percent of all Alliance aid in fiscal
1962, dropped to 12 percent in fiscal 1963.
And direct budget support dropped from
4 percent to 2 during the same period.
I am happy to report today that the
trend continues. Balance of payments
assistance under the Alliance program
dropped from $70.8 million in fiscal 1963
to $50.3 million in fiscal 1964. In per-
centage terms, this represents a drop of
4 points from 12 percent of the total
Alliance program in fiscal 1963 to 8 per-
cent in fiscal 1964. Direct budget sup-
port dropped from $17.4 million, or 3 per-
cent of the total program in fiscal 1963,
to $10.1 million, or 2 percent of the total
program in fiscal 1964.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart
prepared by AID, which reflects this en-
couraging progress, be inserted in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
There being no objection, the chart
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
fiscal year 1964
Fiscal year 1959
Fiscal year 1960
- Fl? scal year 1961
Fiscal year 1962
Fiscal year 1963
Fiscal year 1964
Amount
Percent of
total
Amount
Percent of
total
Amount
Percent of
total
AmOunt
Peroent of
total
Amount
Percent of
total
Amount
Percent of
total
-
Development project assistance
$103.5
84
$87.2
83
$210.6
83
1 $300.0
63
1 $383. 0
68
$465.8
72
Development program assistance-Loans
under long-range plans
2 95.0
17
2 115.0
18
Balance of payments assistance_
7.3
6
8.4
8
11.0
5
184.7
33
4 70.8
12
50.3
8
Direct budget support
12.2
10
9. 5
9
31. 5
12
19. 5
4
17.4
3
10.1
2
,
Total
122.0
100
105.1
100
253.7
100
474 2
100
566.2
100
661.2
100
1 Includes Alliance for Progress funds for nonregional projects directly benefiting '$60 million to Colombia and $55 million to Chile.
Latin American countries. 'Including $23.75 million grant to Dominican Republic.
2 $80 million to Colombia and $35 million to Mile.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
17946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, my com-
ment on these figures would not be com-
plete without acknowledgement of the
fact that the continued progress during
the last fiscal year was made in spite of
very special circumstances which de-
manded a temporary departure from the
preferred emphasis on long-tern develop-
mental pojects.
The special circumstances, as we all
know, occurred in Brazil, after the new
government of President Castelo Branco
came to power April. The accession of
power by this new government, favorably
disposed toward the goals of the Alliance,
called for fast action. The Goulart gov-
vernment had left the nation in a state
of fiscal distress and the new govern-
ment needed immediate assistance if it
was to survive and succeed.
Because of these special circumstances,
the United States on June 23 extended a
$50 million contingency fund loan for
balance-of-payments financing to the
new Brazilian Government. The AID
assures me that this loan satisfied cri-
teria for supporting assistance in view of
the stabilization and reform efforts of the
Castelo Branco government during its
first weeks in power. The loan will en-
able the government to formulate a com-
prehensive development program, and its
local currency counterpart can be used
to finance such purposes as low-cost
housing, working capital for industries
and expanded agricultural credit.
Mr. President, I belieire our AID pro-
gram should be flexible enough so that we
can step in on short notice with the kind
of assistance which was offered in Brazil.
For a short-term, one-shot loan, it was
perfectly justifiable and acceptable. I
would only emphasize that we can be free
to have this flexibility only as long as our
basic program is in order and not un-
duly weighted toward nondevelopmental
support.
I congratulate the Alliance for Progress
for holding the line during the past fiscal
year and keeping budget support and
balance-of-payments financing to a min-
imum so that, even with the special
short-notice loan which had to be ex-
tended to Brazil, the overall record of
expenditures for the year shows con-
tinued progress toward predominately
long-range development spending. I
trust this good trend continues.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
call up my amendment No. 1151 and ask
that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2,
line 24, immediately after "enterprises"
insert the following: ", or acquired
through normal channels of trade,".
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Alabama yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
should like to ask the majority leader,
"What gives" for the rest of the day?
Mr. MANSFIELD. There will be no
further yea-and-nay votes tonight on
amendments. I understand that the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Alabama may be acceptable to the chair-
man of the committee and to the
committee.
If any other amendments are offered,
I assure Senators that there will be no
yea-and-nay votes on them tonight. If
record votes are demanded, I am sure
Senators would agree that they ought
to go over until tomorrow.
Mr. DIRKSEN., Mr. President, I wish
to report to the distinguished majority
leader that my prayerful exploration in
the field of limitation of debate on
amendments to the foreign aid bill has
been anything but fruitful.
Mr. MANSFIELD. May I say I am
not in the least surprised.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Alabama yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. Earlier in the day,
I understood the majority leader to say
that my amendment would follow the
amendment of the distinguished Senator
from Kansas; so I planned to call it up.
It would require only 12 minutes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator from
South Carolina indicated that he was
willing to offer his amendment, but I do
not believe the majority leader gave as-
surance that there would be action on the
amendment tonight.
He can call it up and can talk about it,
but I am quite sure that his amendment
will not be disposed of in 12 minutes. If,
however, a rollcall is demanded, the re-
quest will not be granted tonight.
Mr. THURMOND. I do not expect to
ask for a rollcall, and I shall not need
12 Minutes.
Am I to understand that there will be
no more rollcalls tonight definitely?
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. THURMOND. In view of that,
I shall wait until 'tomorrow to call up my
amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Perhaps some
other Senator will offer an amendment.
I hope so because I should like to see
an amendment at the desk.
Mr. THURMOND. I should like to ex-
pedite the matter. I understood that was
what the Senator from Montana wished
Ito do.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I will
offer an amendment but if the Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND]
will offer his amendment and have it
made the pending question that will be
all right with me. I shall do my best
to persuade the Senate, if I offer an
amendment, that I should have a rollcall.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senators can
settle this issue between themselves.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I as-
sure Senators triat I shall take only a
minute or so.
My amendment has to do with section
101(e) of the bill as reported by the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee. This
section authorizes the President to have
made a study to determine the feasibility
of establishing programs for furnishing
to underdeveloped countries used tools,
machinery and equipment.
This section was added to the bill in
committee. It was proposed to the com-
mittee by the distinguished senior Sena-
tor from Connecticut [Mr. Dorm].
As presently written, the section limits
the scope of the study which it proposes
August 7
to programs utilizing only such used
tools, machinery and equipment as may
be donated by private enterprise. ?The
purpose of my amendment is to broaden
the scope of this study so that it will in-
clude consideration of programs utilizing
used tools, machinery and equipment
which may be acquired through normal
channels of trade.
I believe that my amendment is desir-
able for several reasons. First of all, the
allegation has been made to the Senate
Small Business Committee that a pro-
gram of the kind contemplated by this
section of the bill will greatly diminish
the supply of these articles in the United
States. The effect of this shortage would
be to force up the prices of used tools,
machinery and equipment.. Small busi-
nesses, which traditionally purchase used
equipment, may not be able to afford
these higher prices. It is further con-
tended that such a shortage would ad-
versely affect those small machinery
dealers engaged in the business of pur-
chasing, rebuilding and reselling used
machinery.
If my amendment is adopted, the
scope of the proposed study will be broad
enough so that, should it be determined
that a program utilizing donated equip-
ment is not feasible?whether because of
its adverse effect upon existing busi-
nesses or for other reasons?then pro-
grams utilizing used equipment pur-
chased through normal trade channels
can be considered and studied.
Mr. President, I want to commend the
senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Doan] for his sponsorship of this section
of the bill. The possible utilization of
used machinery and equipment in our
aid programs should be explored by the
type of study which his amendment au-
thorizes. If the scope of the study is
broadened, as I have suggested, I know
that it will be useful to those charged
with the responsibility of administering
our aid programs in the years to come.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
see no objection to the amendment. It
authorizes a study of the feasibility and
utilization of this machinery, and I am
perfectly willing to accept it.
Mr. MIT.t RR. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Alabama yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. I believe that the main
thrust of the provision in the bill, as it
was pointed out, would be to develop
areas of utilization of our used ma-
chinery, the idea being that many peo-
ple in the developing nations cannot
afford new items. The fact that these
are used items would, nonetheless, give
them a stakehold with the tools to work
with, and the disposal of usable ma-
chinery to these people would provide a
better market price for our new ma-
chinery in this country.
I wonder whether the fact that the
amendment provides for a study of the
feasibility of distributing or giving away
new items of machinery might not clash
with the objectives of this amendment.
Mr. SPARKMAN. These are not new
items to which I referred in my brief
statement. I made reference to numer-
ous companies in this country that pur-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ase old machinery and used equip-
ent, rebuild it and then resell it. It
that kind of material we are talking
out.
Mr. MILLER. In other words, the
endment relates to the distribution of
ese items of used machinery.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator is cor-
ct.
Mr. MILLER. Not only through pri-
te eleemosynary institutions but also
ough normal channels of trade.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. This is only a
udy.
Mr. MILLER. I understand that.
econd, it relates only to used items.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator is
rrect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
estion is on agreeing to the amend-
ent of the Senator from Alabama.
The amendment was agreed to.
UTHORIZATION FOR THE PRESI-
DENT PRO TEMPORE OR ACTING
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE TO
SIGN BILLS DURING ADJOURN-
MENT OF THE SENATE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
sk unanimous consent that the Presi-
nt pro tempore or the Acting Presi-
ent pro tempore be authorized to sign
ills during the adjournment of the
enate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. ,Wit
ut objection, it is so ordered.
?ability which shall be consistent with
achievement of the objectives of the statute
authorizing the financial assistance in con-
nection with which the action Is taken. No
such rule, regulation, or order shall become
effective unless and until approved by the
President. Compliance with any require-
ment adopted pursuant to this section may
be effected (1) by the termination of or re-
fusal to grant or to continue assistance under
such program or activity to any recipient as
to whom there has been an express finding
on the record of a failure to comply with such
requirement, but such termination or re-
fusal shall be limited to the particular
political entity, or part thereof, or other re-
cipient as to whom such a finding has been
made and shall be limited in its effect to the
particular program, or part thereof, in which
such noncompliance has been so found, or
(2) by any other means authorized by law:
Provided, however, That no such action shall
be taken until the department or agency con-
cerned has advised the appropriate person or
persons of the failure to comply with the re-
quirement and has determined that compli-
ance cannot be secured by voluntary means.
In the case of any action terminating, or re-
fusing to grant or continue, assistance be-
cause of failure to comply with a requirement
Imposed pursuant to this section, the head
of the department or agency shall file with
the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House
of Representatives and the Foreign Relations
Committee of the Senate, a full written re-
port of the circumstances and the grounds
for such action. No such action shall become
effective until thirty days have elapsed after
the filing of such report.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as
I understand, this amendment is now
the pending business.
The PRESIDING 010.V.LCER. The
Senator is correct. The pending busi-
ness LI the amendment of the Senator
from South Carolina, amendment No.
1164.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
thaik the Chair.
NDMENT OF FOREIGN A
ANCE ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the considera-
on of the bill (H.R. 11380) to amend
rther the Foreign Assistance Act of
61, as amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President,
U up my amendment No. 1164 and ask
at it be made the pending question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
mendment of the Senator from South
arolina will be stated for the informa-
ion of the Senate.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
k unanimous consent that the reading
f the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
ut objection, it is so ordered; and the
enclment will be printed in the RECORD
t this point.
The amendment (No. 1164) submitted
y Mr. TErmuvrom), is as follows:
TLE V?NONDISCRIMINATION IN UNITED STATES
ASSISTED COUNTRIES AND PROGRAMS
SEC. 501. No person in any recipient coun-
ry shall, on the ground of race, color, reli-
ion, or national origin, be excluded from
articipation in, be denied the benefits of,
r be subjected to discrimination under any
rogram or activity receiving any form of the
nited State financial assistance.
SEC. 502. The Agency for International De-
elopment and any other department or
agency which is empowered, or may in the
uture be empowered, to extend United
States financial assistance to any program
or activity in any country, by way of grant,
loan, contract, or other, is directed to effec-
tuate the provisions of section 501 with re-
spect to such program or activity by Issuing
rules, regulations, or orders of general appli-
THE PROBLEM OF NONVOTER
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, in the
coming months, more than 100 million
Americans will be asked to cast their
ballots for the future leaders of this Na-
tion. These elections will determine the
future pellicles and development of our
country. I find it particularly distress-
ing that a nation which has sacrificed
thousands of its men to preserve the
democratic system can bring only 64 per-
cent of its voters to the polls.,
The right to vote is denied to three-
quarters of the world's adults. It is not
only a privilege but also an obligation
upon which rests the future direction of
this country at home and abroad. I am
hopeful that 1964 will mark a decided
increase in the percentage of Americans
who will fulfill this responsibility of
citizenship.
I heartily commend the efforts of the
American Legion in their present "Get-
Out-the-Vote" drive. I ask unanimous
consent that the forthright statement of
their national commander, Daniel Foley,
which is published in the current issue
of the American Legion magazine, be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
17947
FOR YOUR INFORMATION: THE PROBLEM OF THE
Norman=
(By National Commander Daniel L. Foley)
Beneath the noise and color and excite-
ment of current political campaigning, con-
sider this:
In the next 3 months more than 100 mil-
lion Americans will be asked to decide with
their ballots the future course and leadership
of the Nation.
If the 1960 pattern is repeated, more than
one-third of the electorate will take no part
In the decision.
Recent national elections have produced
voter turnouts of 90 percent in Italy, 85 per-
cent in West Germany, and about 80 percent
in Great Britain, France, Israel, and the
Scandinavian countries. The U.S. score in
1960 was 64 percent, the highest in our,
history.
A comparable showing in 1964 won't be
nearly good enough. To insure a sound base
for responsible government at home and
strong leadership abroad, we need an over-
whelming turnout at the polls on November
3. I urge every American Legionnaire to
join now in a sustained drive, through edu-
cation and persuasion and personal example,
to impress upon all our citizens the respon-
sibility to vote.
As a first step, each of us should make cer-
tain that our own path to the polls is clear.
Responsible exercise of the right to vote re-,
quires that we (1) qualify as voters by regis-
tering under the laws of our State, (2) size up
the issues and candidates in the light of the
best information we can get, and (3) vote
on election day.
The right to vote, like the other fundamen-
tal rights, Is not self-perpetuating. To keep
it, we must use it?intelligently and faith-
fully. Either we vote and thereby support
our free, representative system; or we fail to
vote and thereby weaken the system.
Any American Legionnaire who might be
inclined to forego voting on November 3
ought to consider these facts:
Three-fourths of the world's adults today
are denied the privilege of expressing their
preference at the polls. They live under
Systems where freedom of choice is out-
lawed or where educational and economic
levels are too low to sustain popular govern-
ment.
Thousands of young Americans who fought
at our sides to preserve the right of suffrage
never got a chance to exercise it. They gave
their lives before reaching voting age.
Does one vote count? Every vote counts,
yours just as much as any other. To be-
lieve otherwise is to disbelieve the doctrines
which tmdergird our free society. Your
vote counts whether you cast it or not; for
when you don't vote, you double the influ-
ence of a voter who disagrees with your view
of what is _good and necessary for the
country.
In the 1960 presidential election, a switch
of less than 1 percent of the ballots in eight
States would have changed the election's re-
sult. The 1962 gubernatorial election in
Minnesota was decided by a margin of 91
votes out of a million and a quarter cast.
But it isn't a question of voting your
choice. Public indifference at the polls
breeds government indifference. He who
shirks his vote is poorly equipped to protest
if those elected shirk theirs thereafter.
A 64-percent sampling of American voters
in 1964 doesn't meet America's needs in the
1960's. Nations around the globe, many Of
them new and groping for a political philoso-
phy, look to the United States for lessons in
the functioning of a free society. Rightly or
wrongly, they will question an elective proc-
ess in which four people out of ten do not
vote, and only 1 in 10 involves himself in
political combat.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/21: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300090014-6