FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1979 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION CONGRESS ON S. 1450 A BILL TO PROMOTE THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES BY STRENGTHENING AND IMPRO

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
470
Document Creation Date: 
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 27, 2008
Sequence Number: 
1
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
December 19, 1979
Content Type: 
OPEN SOURCE
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4.pdf28.18 MB
Body: 
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1979 HEARINGS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1450 A BILL TO PROMOTE THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES BY STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING THE FOREIGN SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 HEARINGS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1450 A BILL TO PROMOTE THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES BY STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING THE FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 60-236 0 WASHINGTON : 1980 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS FRANK CHURCH, Idaho, Chairman CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JOHN GLENN, Ohio RICHARD STONE, Florida PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine EDWARD ZORINSKY, Nebraska JACOB K. JAVITS, New York CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee JESSE HELMS, North Carolina S. I. HAYAKAWA, California RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana WILLIAM B. BADER, Staff Director ALBERT A. LAKELAND, Jr., Minority Staff Director Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 CONTENTS Hearing days : Page July 27, 1979----------------------------------------------------- 1 December 14, 1979------------------------------------------------ 211 December 19,1979------------------------------------------------ 385 Statement of : Blaylock, Kenneth T., national president, American Federation of Gov- ernment Employees-------------------------------------------- 277 Campbell, Hon. Alan K., Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Man- agement ----------------------- - 192 Dorman, Lesley, president, Association of American Women Foreign Service --------------------------------------- - ------- 328 Herz, Hon. Martin F., former Ambassador to Bulgaria-------------- 212 Nooter, Hon. Robert H., Acting Administrator, Agency for Interna- tional Development -------------------------------------------- 206 Read, Hon. Ben H., Under Secretary for Management, Department of State --------------------------------------------------------- 385 Reinhardt, Hon. John E., Director, U.S. International Communication Agency ------------------------------------------------------- 200 Stern, Robert H., American Foreign Service Association------------ 250 Simpson, Smith, retired Foreign Service officer, Annandale, Va------ 360 Thomas, Mrs. Cynthia A., Foreign Service Reserve Officer, political analyst ------------------------------------------------------- 376 Uyehara, Cecil H., Foreign Affairs Chapter, Asian and Pacific Amer- ican Federal Employees Council-------------------------------- 353 Vance, Hon. Cyrus R., Secretary of State-------------------------- 179 Vance, Hon. Sheldon B., former Ambassador to Chad and Zaire_----- 230 Veale, William C., American Foreign Service Association------------ 261 Insertions for the record : Text of S. 1450 --------------------------------------------------- 2 Prepared statement of Hon. John E. Reinhardt-------------------- 201 Prepared statement of Hon. Robert H. Nooter---------------------- 206 Biography of Ambassador Martin F. Herz------------------------- 212 Letter to Senator Church from Ambassador Herz, dated October 24, 1979, concerning the Foreign Service Act of 1979------------------ 212 Prepared statement of Ambassador Martin F. Herz---------------- 220 Biography of Ambassador Sheldon B. Vance------------------------ 229 Report of the task force to study the Senior Service, submitted by Ambassador Vance--------------------------------------------- 233 Prepared statement of Hon. Sheldon B. Vance---------------------- 245 Prepared statement of Robert H. Stern ----------------------------- 255 Letter to Senator Pell from Kenneth W. Bleakley, president, American Foreign Service Association, dated December 18, 1979, regarding performance pay----------------------------------------------- 264 Section-by-section analysis of S. 1450, the Foreign Service Act of 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------- 265 Prepared statement of Kenneth T. Blaylock------------------------ 281 Prepared statement of Lesley Dorman----------------------------- 331 Report on dependent employment, submitted by the Association of American Foreign Service Women------------------------------- 333 Report on the Foreign Service Act and annuities, submitted by the Association of American Foreign Service Women----------------- 336 What role for spouses?, submitted by the Association of American Foreign Service Women---------------------------------------- 342 Biographical sketch of Cecil H. Uyehara--------------------------- 352 Prepared statement of Cecil H. Uyehara--------------------------- 355 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Insertions for the record-Continued Letter to Senator Pell from Elliott K. Chan, chapter president, Asian and Pacific American Federal Employee Council, dated January 11, Page 1980, regarding the Foreign Service Act__________________________ 359 One day in the life of Simas Kudirka and the State Department, sub- mitted by Mr. Simpson ------ ----------------------------------- 364 Biography of Mrs. Cynthia A. Thomas_____________________________ 375 Prepared statement of Mrs. Cynthia A. Thomas____________________ 379 Prepared statement of Dr. Richard I. Block, Esq., Chairman of the Foreign Service Grievance Board, Department of State ------------ 390 Letter to Hon. Ben H. Read, Under Secretary for Management, Depart- ment of State, from David D. Newsom, Chairman, Board of Foreign Service, dated December 18, 1979, regarding performance pay ------ 400 Support for AFGE amendment, submitted by the Department of State --------------------------------------------------------- 409 Support for second AFGE amendment to grant retirement benefits to former Binational Center Grantees, submitted by the Department of State --------------------------------------------------------- 410 The need for continuation of mandatory retirement in the Foreign ,Service of the United States, submitted by the Department of State- 412 Hon. Ben Read's responses to additional questions submitted by Sena- tor Pell-------------------------------------------------------- 414 Appendix: Letter to Senator Pell from the Government Accountability Project, dated January 4, 1980, regarding the Foreign Service Act of 1979_- 427 Letter to Senator Pell from Moncrieff J. Spear, dated January 12, 1980, concerning proposed restructuring of the Foreign Service ---------- 433 Letter to Senator Church from John J. Harter, dated January 15, 1980, supporting State Department's amendments to the Foreign Service Act ----------------------------------------------------------- 434 Letter to Senator Pell from the Women's Action Organization, dated December 18, 1979, regarding equal opportunity in employment_-__ 435 Letter to Senator Pell from the Foreign Affairs Employees Council, dated December 17, 1979, regarding the Foreign Service Act -------- 453 Letter to Senator Pell from the Diplomatic and Consular Officers, re- tired, Inc., dated February 11, 1980, concerning an amendment to the proposed Foreign Service Act-------------------------------- 465 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1979 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claiborne Pell presiding. Present : Senators Pell and Lugar. Senator PELL. The Committee on. Foreign Relations will come to order. Today we will hear testimony from the executive branch on the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979. This legislation is a compre- hensive revision of the Federal law governing the Foreign Service personnel system. It is intended to be a companion measure to the Civil Service Reform Act, designed to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the foreign policy arm of Government. [Text of S. 1450 follows:] (1) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 2 96TH CONGRESS S91450 I9T SESSION , To promote the foreign policy of the United States by strengthening and improving the Foreign Service of the United States, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JULY 9 (legislative day, JUNE 21), 1979 Mr. CHURCH (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations A BILL To promote the foreign policy of the United States by strength- ening and improving the Foreign Service of the United States, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That title I of this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Service 4 Act of 1979". 5 TITLE I-THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1979 6 CHAPTER 1-GENERAL PROVISIONS 7 SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES.-(a) The Con- 8 gress finds- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 3 2 1 (1) that a career Foreign Service, characterized 2 by excellence and discipline, is essential in the national 3 interest to assist, the President and the Secretary of 4 State in conducting the foreign affairs of the United 5 States; 6 (2) that the Foreign Service of the United States, 7 established under the Foreign Service Acts of 1924 8 and 1946, must be preserved, strengthened, and im- 9 proved in order to carry out its mission effectively in 10 response to the complex challenges of modern diploma- 11 cy and international relations; and 12 (3) that the Foreign Service should be representa- 13 tive of the American people, aware of the principles 14 and history of the United States and informed of cur- 15 rent concerns and trends in American life, knowledge- 16 able of other nations' affairs, cultures, and languages, 17 available to serve in assignments throughout the world, 18 and operated on the basis of merit principles. 19 (b) The objectives of this Act, in order to strengthen and 20 improve the Foreign Service of the United States, are- 21 (1) to assure, in accordance with merit principles, 22 admission through impartial and rigorous examination, 23 acquisition of career status only by those who have 24 demonstrated their fitness through successful comple- 25 tion of probationary assignments, effective career de- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 4 3 1 velopment, advancement, and retention of the ablest, 2 and separation of those who do not meet the requisite 3 standards of performance; 4 (2) to foster the development of policies and pro- 5 cedures which will facilitate and encourage entry into 6 and advancement in, the Foreign Service by persons 7 from all segments of American society, and equal op- 8 portunity and fair and equitable treatment for all with- 9 out regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, 10 national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicap- 11 ping condition; 12 (3) to provide for more efficient, economical, and 13 equitable personnel administration through a simplified 14 structure of Foreign Service personnel categories and 15 salaries; 16 (4) to establish a statutory basis for participation 17 by the members of the Foreign Service, through their 18 elected representatives, in the formulation of personnel 19 policies and procedures which affect their conditions of 20 employment, and to maintain a fair and effective 21 system for the resolution of individual grievances; 22 (5) to minimize the impact of the hardships, dis- 23 ruptions, and other unusual conditions of overseas 24 service upon the members of the Foreign Service, and Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 5 4 1 to mitigate the special impact of such conditions upon 2 their families; 3 (6) to provide salaries, allowances, and benefits 4 that will permit the Foreign Service to attract and 5 retain qualified personnel and to provide a system of 6 incentive payments and awards to encourage and 7 reward outstanding performance; 8 (7) to establish a Senior Foreign Service charac- 9 terized by strong policy formulation capabilities, out- 10 standing executive leadership qualities, and/or highly 11 developed functional and area expertise; 12 (8) to improve Foreign Service managerial flexi- 13 bility and effectiveness; 14 (9) to increase efficiency and economy by promot- 15 ing maximum compatibility among the agencies author- 16 ized to utilize the Foreign Service personnel system, as 17 well as compatibility between the Foreign Service and 18 the Civil Service; and 19 (10) otherwise to enable the Foreign Service to 20 serve effectively the interests of the United States and 21 to provide the highest caliber of representation in the 22 - conduct of foreign affairs. 23 SEc. 102. DEFINITIONS.-When used in this Act, the 24 term- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 6 5 (1) "abroad" means all areas not included within the United States; (2) "agency" means an agency of the United States Government as defined in section 551 of title 5, United States Code; (3) "chief of mission" means a principal officer in charge of a diplomatic mission of the United States or of a United States office abroad which is designated by the Secretary as diplomatic in nature (including any person assigned under this Act to be temporarily in charge of such a mission or office); (4) "Department" means the Department of State; (5) "function" includes any duty, obligation, power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, discre- tion, or activity; (6) "Government" means the Government of the United States of America; (7) "merit principles" means the principles set out in section 2301 of title 5, United States Code; (8) "principal officer" means the officer in charge of a diplomatic mission, consular mission (other than a consular agency), or other Foreign Service post of the United States; (9) "Secretary" means the Secretary of State; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 6 1 (10) "Service" means the Foreign Service of the 2 United States; 3 (11) "United States", when used in a geographic 4 sense, means the fifty States and the District of ? 5 Columbia. 6 SEC. 103. PERSONNEL OF THE SERVICE.-The per- 7 sonnel of the Service shall consist of the following: 8 (1) chiefs of mission, appointed under section 9 302(a)(1) or assigned under section 511(c); 10 (2) ambassadors at large, appointed under section 11 302(a)(1); 12 (3) the Senior Foreign Service, appointed under 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 section 302(a)(1) or 303, who shall provide the corps of leaders and experts for the management of the Service and the performance of its mission; (4) Foreign Service officers, appointed under sec- tion 302(a)(1), who shall have general responsibility for carrying out the functions of the Service; (5) Foreign Service personnel, appointed under section 303, who are citizens of the United States and who provide skills and services required for effective performance by the Service; (6) foreign national employees, appointed under section 303, who provide clerical, administrative, tech- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 8 7 1 nical, fiscal, and other support at Foreign Service posts 2 abroad; and 3 (7) consular agents, appointed under section 303, 4 who provide consular and related services as author- 5 ized by the Secretary at specified locations abroad ? 6 where no Foreign Service posts are situated. 7 SEC. 104. FUNCTIONS.-Members of the Service shall, 8 under the direction of the Secretary- 9 (1) represent the interests of the United States in 10 relation to foreign nations and international organiza- 11 tions, and perform the functions relevant to their ap- 12 pointments and assignments, including (as appropriate) 13 functions under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 14 Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Rela- 15 tions, other international agreements to which the 16 United States is a party, the laws of the United States 17 and orders, regulations, and directives issued pursuant 18 to law; 19 (2) provide guidance for the conduct of programs 20 and activities of the Department and other agencies 21 which relate to the foreign relations of the United 22 States; and 23 (3) perform functions on behalf of any agency or 24 other Government establishment (including any in the 25 legislative or judicial branch) requiring their services. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 9 8 1 CHAPTER 2-MANAGEMENT OF THE SERVICE 2 SEC. 201. THE SECRETARY OF STATE.-Under the di- 3 rection of the President, the Secretary shall administer and 4 direct the Service, and shall coordinate its activities with the 5 needs of the Department and other agencies. The Secretary 6 is authorized to prescribe such regulations as the Secretary 7 may deem appropriate to carry out functions under This Act, 8 and may delegate such functions which are vested in the Sec- 9 retary to any employee of the Department or member of the 10 Service. 11 SEC. 202. OTHER AGENCIES EMPLOYING FOREIGN 12 SERVICE PERSONNEL.-(a) The Director of the Internation- 13 al Communication Agency, the Director of the International 14 Development Cooperation Agency, and the head of any other 15 agency authorized by law to utilize the Foreign Service per- 16 sonnel system shall exercise the functions vested in the Sec- 17 retary by this Act, with respect to personnel of the Service in 18 their respective agencies, subject to the provisions of chapter 19 12 and other applicable laws. 20 (b) Except as otherwise provided, references in this Act 21 to the "Department" and to the "Secretary" shall be 22 deemed, with respect to the personnel and functions of the 23 International Communication Agency, the International De- 24 velopment Cooperation Agency, and other agencies author- 25 ized by law to utilize the Foreign Service personnel system, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 8 9 10 11 9 to be references to such agencies and to the heads of those agencies, subject to the provisions of chapter 12 and other applicable laws. References in this Act (or other law) to "Foreign Service officers" shall, with respect to the Interna- tional Communication Agency, be deemed to include refer- ences to Foreign Service information officers. (c) Chapters 10 and 11 of this Act shall apply only- to the Department, the International Communication Agency, and the International Development Cooperation Agency. (d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as diminishing the authority of the Director of the International Communi- cation Agency or the Director of the International Develop- ment Cooperation Agency. SEC. 203. THE CHIEF OF MISSION.-(a) Under the di- rection of the President, the chief of mission to a foreign country- (1) shall have full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all Government offi- cers and employees in that country, except for person- nel under the command of a United States area mili- tary commander; and (2) shall keep fully and currently informed with respect to all activities and operations of the Govern- ment within that country, and shall ' insure that all. Government officers and employees in. that country, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 11 10 1 except for personnel under the command of a United 2 States area military commander, comply fully with all 3 applicable directives of the chief of mission. 4 (b) Any agency having officers or employees in a foreign ? 5 country shall keep the chief of mission to that country fully 6 and currently informed with respect to all activities and oper- 7 ations of its officers and employees in that country, and shall 8 insure that all of its officers and employees in that country, 9 except for personnel under the command of a United States 10 area military commander, comply fully with all applicable 11 directives of the chief of mission. 12 SEC. 204. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL.-There shall be 13 a Director General of the Foreign Service, who shall be ap- 14 pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent 15 of the Senate, from among the career members of the Senior 16 Foreign Service. The Director General shall assist the Secre- 17 tary in the management of the Service and shall perform 18 such functions, including functions under chapter 12, as the 19 Secretary may prescribe. 20 SEC. 205. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.-(a) There shall 21 be an Inspector General of the Foreign Service, who shall be 22 appointed by the President, by and with the advice and con- 23 sent of the Senate, from among the career members of the 24 Senior Foreign Service. Under the direction of the Secretary, 25 the Inspector General shall inspect the work of each Foreign Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 12 11 1 Service post at least every three years, shall inspect periodi- 2 cally the bureaus and offices of the Department of State, and 3 shall perform such functions as the Secretary may prescribe. 4 (b) Under the direction of the Secretary, the Inspector 5 General may review the conduct of the Government's pro- 6 grams and activities performed under the direction, coordina- 7 tion, and supervision of chiefs of mission for the purpose of 8 ascertaining their consonance with the foreign policy of the 9 United States and their consistency with the responsibilities 10 of the Secretary and the chief of mission. 11 (c) Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that it 12 is necessary in the public interest, the Secretary may author- 13 ize any Foreign Service inspector acting on behalf of the In- 14 spector General to suspend from duty any member of the 15 Service other than a chief of mission. If the member so sus- 16 pended is a principal officer, the Secretary may authorize a 17 Foreign Service inspector to serve in the place of the sus- 18 pended officer for a period not to exceed ninety days. 19 SEC. 206. THE BOARD OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE.- 20 The President shall establish a Board of the Foreign Service 21 to advise the Secretary on matters relating to the Foreign 22 Service, including furtherance of the objectives of maximum 23 compatibility among agencies authorized by law to utilize the 24 Foreign Service personnel system and compatibility between 25 the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. The Board of the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 13 12 1 Foreign Service shall be chaired by a career member of the 2 Senior Foreign Service designated by the Secretary and shall 3 include senior representatives of the Department, the Inter- 4 national Communication Agency, the International Develop- 5 ment Cooperation Agency, the Office of Personnel Manage- 6 ment, the Office of Management and Budget, and such other 7 agencies as the President may designate. 8 CHAPTER 3-APPOINTMENTS 9 SEC. 301. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR APPOINT- 10 MENT.-(a) Only citizens of the United States may be ap- 11 pointed to the Service, other than for service abroad as a 12 consular agent or as a foreign national employee. 13 (b) The Secretary shall prescribe appropriate written, 14 oral, physical, and other examinations for appointment to the 15 Service (other than as a chief of mission) in accordance with 16 merit principles. 17 (c) The fact that an applicant for appointment as a For- 18 eign Service officer candidate is a veteran or a disabled vet- 19 eran as defined in sections 2108 (1) or (2) of title 5, United 20 States Code, shall be considered an affirmative factor in 21 making appointments to the Service. 22 SEC. 302. PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS.-(a)(1) Ap- 23 pointment in the Service as a chief of mission, as an ambas- 24 sador at large, as a career member of the Senior Foreign 5(1-2' fi 0 - e0 - 2 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 14 13 1 Service, or as Foreign Service officer, shall be made by the 2 President, by and with the advice''and consent of the Senate. 3 (2) The President may, by and with the advice and con- 4 sent of the Senate, confer the personal rank of career ambas- 5 sador upon a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, 6 in recognition of especially distinguished service over a sus- 7 tained period. Such personal rank shall be in addition to the 8 member's salary class, and no additional compensation shall 9 be paid to a career ambassador solely by virtue of such 10 personal rank. 11 (3) The personal rank of ambassador may be conferred 12 by the President in connection with a special mission for the 13 President not exceeding six months in duration if the Presi- 14 dent, before conferring such rank, "transmits a written report 15 of his intent to confer such personal rank to the Committee 16 on Foreign Relations of the Senate and transmits with that 17 report all relevant materials concerning any potential con- 18 flicts of interest by the proposed recipient of such personal 19 rank. 20 (4) Except as provided in this section, appointment to 21 any position having the title or rank of ambassador or minis- 22 ter shall be made by the President, by and with the advice 23 and consent of the Senate. 24 (b) If a member of the Service is appointed to any posi- 25 tion by the President, by and with the advice and consent of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 15 14 1 the Senate or by the President alone, the period of the mem- 2 ber's service in that position shall be regarded as an assign- 3 ment under chapter 5, and the member shall not, by virtue of 4 the acceptance of such assignment, lose his or her status as a 5 member of the Service. A member of the Senior Foreign 6 Service who accepts such an assignment may elect to contin- 7 ue to receive the salary of his or her class and remain eligible 8 for performance pay under chapter 4 in lieu of receiving the 9 salary of the position to which the member is appointed by 10 the President. 11 SEC. 303. SECRETARIAL APPOINTMENTS.-The Sec- 12 retary is authorized to appoint the members of the Service, 13 other than the categories described in section 302(a), in ac- 14 cordance with the provisions of this Act and such regulations 15 as the Secretary may prescribe. 16 SEC. 311. APPOINTMENT OF CHIEFS OF MISSION.- 17 (a)(1) The position of chief of mission to a foreign country 18 should be accorded to persons possessing clearly demonstrat- 19 ed competence to perform the duties of a chief of mission, 20 including, to the maximum practicable extent, a useful 21 knowledge of the principal language or dialect of the country 22, in which they are to serve, and knowledge and understanding 23 of the history, the culture, the economic and political institu- 24 tions, and the interests of such country and its people. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 15 1 (2) No person should be accorded the position of chief of 2 mission to a foreign country primarily because of contribu- 3 tions to political campaigns. 4 (3) To the extent practicable, career personnel of the 5 Service should be given consideration for appointment to 6 chief of mission positions. 7 (b)(1) The Secretary shall from time to time furnish the 8 President with the names of career members of the Service 9 qualified for appointment or assignment as chiefs of mission, 10 together with pertinent information about such members, in 11 order to assist the President in selecting qualified candidates 12 for appointment or assignment as chiefs of mission. 13 (2) Each person appointed by the President as ambassa- 14 dor or minister shall, at the time of nomination, file with the 15 Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 16 Speaker of the House of Representatives a report of contri- 17 butions made by such person and by members of his or her 18 immediate family during the period beginning on the first day 19 of the fourth calendar year preceding the calendar year of the 20 nomination and ending on the date of the nomination. The 21 report shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of the nomi- 22 nee, taken before any officer authorized to adminster oaths. 23 The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 24 Senate shall have printed in the Congressional Record each 25 such report. As used in this paragraph, the term "contribu- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 17 16 1 tion" has the same meaning given such term by section 2 301(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 ?' 3 U.S.C. 431(e)), and the term "immediate family" means a 4 person's spouse, and any child, parent, grandparent, brother, 5 or sister of such person and the spouses of any of them. 6 SEC. 321. APPOINTMENT TO THE SENIOR FOREIGN 7 SERVICE.-Appointment to the Senior Foreign Service shall 8 be to a salary class established under section 411, and not to 9 a position. The total number of noncareer members of the 10 Senior Foreign Service shall not exceed 5 per centum of the 11 members of the Senior Foreign Service. 12 SEC. 322. CAREER APPOINTMENTS.-(a) Each candi- 13 date for a career appointment in the Service shall first serve 14 under a limited appointment as a career candidate for a trial 15 period of service prescribed by the Secretary. During a candi- 16 date's trial period of service, the Secretary shall decide 17 whether or not- 18 (1) to offer a career appointment to the candidate, 19 or 20 (2) to recommend to the President that the candi- 21 date be given a career appointment. 22 (b) Decisions by the Secretary under this section shall 23 be based upon the recommendations of boards composed en- 24 tirely or primarily of career members of the Service who shall Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 18 17 1 evaluate the fitness and aptitude of candidates for the work of 2 the Service. 3 SEC. 323. ENTRY LEVELS FOR FOREIGN SERVICE OF- 4 FICER CANDIDATES.-A Foreign Service officer candidate 5 shall not be initially assigned under section 431 to a salary 6 class higher than class 4 in the Foreign Service Schedule 7 established under section 421 unless- 8 (1) the Secretary determines in an individual case 9 that assignment to a higher class is necessary because 10 of the qualifications and experience of the candidate 11 and the needs of the Service; or 12 (2) the candidate is currently serving under a 13 career appointment in the Service at a salary rate 14 equal to or higher than class 4 of such Schedule. 15 SEC. 324. RECALL AND REEMPLOYMENT OF CAREER 16 PERSONNEL.-(a) Whenever the Secretary determines that 17 the needs of the Service so require, the Secretary may recall 18 for active duty any retired member of the Service who served 19 under a career appointment. A retired member may be re- 20 called under this section to any appropriate class, except that 21 a retired member may not be recalled to the Senior Foreign 22 Service in a class higher than the member held at the time of 23 retirement unless appointed to such higher class by the Presi- 24 dent by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 19 18 1 (b) Former career personnel of the Service may be reap- 2 pointed under section 302(a)(1) or 303, without regard to 3 section 322, in a salary class which the Secretary considers 4 appropriate in light of the qualifications and experience of 5 each such candidate for reappointment. 6 SEC. 331. LIMITED AND TEMPORARY APPOINT- 7 MENTS.-Noncareer and other limited appointments in the 8 Service (other than as a chief of mission), including appoint- 9 ment of a person who is an employee of an agency, shall in 10 no event exceed five years in duration and, except as pro- 11 vided in section 333, may not be extended or renewed. A 12 time-limited appointment in the Service for not to exceed one 13 year shall be a temporary appointment. 14 SEC. 332. REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOLLOWING LIM- 15 ITED APPOINTMENT.-Any employee of an agency who ac- 16 cepts a limited appointment in the Service with the consent 17 of the head of the agency in which the employee is regularly 18 employed shall be entitled, upon the termination of such lim- 19 ited appointment, to be reemployed in the same position the 20 employee occupied at the time of appointment to the Service, 21 or in a corresponding or higher position. Such reemployment 22 shall include receipt of any within-grade salary advancements 23 the employee would have received in accordance with law or 24 regulation had the employee remained in the position in 25 which regularly employed. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 20 19 1 SEC. 333. FAMILY MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT EM- 2 PLOYEES.-(a) The Secretary, when employing persons 3 abroad in positions to which career Foreign Service person- 4 nel are not customarily assigned (including vacant positions 5 normally filled by foreign national employees when continuity 6 over a long term is not a significant consideration), shall give 7 equal consideration to employing available qualified family 8 members of Foreign Service and other Government personnel 9 assigned abroad. Family members so employed shall serve 10 under renewable limited appointments and be paid either in 11 accordance with the Foreign Service Schedule established 12 under section 421 or a local compensation plan established 13 under section 451, as appropriate. 14 (b) Employment of family members in accordance with 15 this section must be consistent with the needs of the Service 16 for positions for career personnel. 17 (c) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for the 18 guidance of all agencies regarding the employment at posts 19 abroad of family members of Government personnel. 20 SEC. 341. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR COMMIS- 21 SIONS.-(a) The Secretary may recommend to the President 22 that a member of the Service who is a citizen of the United 23 States be commissioned as a diplomatic or consular officer or 24 both. The President may, by and with the advice and consent 25 of the Senate, commission such member of the Service as a Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 21 20 1 diplomatic or consular officer or both. The Secretary may 2 commission as a vice consul a member of the Service who is 3 a citizen of the United States. All official functions performed by a diplomatic or consular officer, including a vice consul, shall be performed under such a commission. (b) Members of the Service commissioned under this sec- tion may perform under their commissions any function which any category of diplomatic officer (other than a chief of mission) or consular officer is authorized by law to perform. (c) The Secretary shall define the limits of consular districts. CHAPTER 4-COMPENSATION SEC. 401. SALARIES OF CHIEFS OF MISSION.-(a) Each chief of mission shall receive a salary as determined by the President, at one of the annual rates provided by law for levels II through V of the Federal Executive Salary Sched- 17 ule (5 U.S.C. 5313-5316), except as provided in section 18 302(b). 19 (b) The salary of a chief of mission shall commence upon 20 the effective date of appointment to that office. The official 21 services of a chief of mission shall not be deemed terminated 22 by the appointment of a successor, but shall continue for such 23 additional period, not to exceed fifty days after relinquishing 24 charge of the mission, as the Secretary may determine. 25 During that period, the Secretary may require the chief of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 22 21 1 mission to perform such functions as the Secretary may deem 2 necessary in the interest of the Government. 3 SEC. 411. SALARIES OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERV- 4 ICE.-The President shall prescribe salary classes for the 5 Senior Foreign Service and shall prescribe an appropriate 6 title for each class. Salary rates for the Senior Foreign Serv- 7 ice shall not exceed the maximum rate or be less than the 8 minimum rate of basic pay established for the Senior Execu- 9 tive Service under section 5382 of title 5, United States 10 Code, and shall be adjusted at the same time and in the same 11 manner as rates of basic pay are adjusted for the Senior Ex- 12 ecutive Service. 13 SEC. 421. THE FOREIGN SERVICE SCHEDULE.-The 14 President shall prescribe nine classes of salary rates for mem- 15 bers of the Service who are citizens of the United States and 16 for whom other salary rates are not provided by this chapter. 17 The basic salary of the highest class established under this 18 section, which shall be designated class 1, shall not exceed 19 the highest rate of basic pay established for grade 15 of the 20 General Schedule described in section 5104 of title 5, United 21 States Code. Salary rates for the Foreign Service under this 22 section shall be established in accordance with subchapter I 23 of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, and shall be 24 adjusted at the same time and in the same manner as rates of 25 basic pay are adjusted for the General Schedule. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 22 1 SEC. 431. ASSIGNMENT TO A SALARY CLASs.-(a) 2 The Secretary shall assign to an appropriate salary class es- 3 tablished under this chapter each person appointed to the 4 Service, other than a chief of mission or member of the 5 Senior Foreign Service whose salary is determined by the 6 terms of his or her appointment. 7 (b) The salary class to which a member of the Service is 8 assigned under this section shall not be affected by the mem- 9 ber's assignment to any position or post under chapter 5. 10 Except as authorized by chapter 35 of title 5, United States 11 Code, changes in the salary class of a member of the Senior 12 Foreign Service or a member receiving a salary under the 13 Foreign Service Schedule shall be made only in accordance 14 with chapter 6. 15 SEC. 441. PERFORMANCE PAY.-(a) Members of the 16 Senior Foreign Service who are serving- 17 (1) under career or career candidate appointments, 18 or 19 (2) under limited appointments with reemployment 20 rights under section 332 to the Senior Executive Serv- 21 ice, 22 shall be eligible to compete for performance pay in accord- 23 ance with this section. Performance pay shall be paid in a 24 lump sum and shall be in addition to the basic salary as pre- 25 scribed under section 411 and any other award. The fact that Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 23 1 a member of the Senior Foreign Service competing for per- 2 formance pay would receive compensation thereby exceeding 3 the compensation of any other member of the Service shall 4 not be taken into account in consideration for the award or its 5 payment. 6 (b) Awards of performance pay shall take into account 7 the criteria established by the Office of Personnel Manage- 8 ment for performance awards under section 5384 of title 5, 9 United States Code, and rank awards under section 4507 of 10 title 5, United States Code. Such awards shall be subject to 11 the following limitations: 12 (1) not more than 50 per centum of the members 13 of the Senior Foreign Service may receive performance 14 pay in any one year; 15 (2) performance pay for a member of the Senior 16 Foreign Service may not exceed 20 per centum of the 17 member's annual rate of basic salary except as pro- 18 vided in paragraph (3); 19 (3) not more than 6 per centum of the members of 20 the Senior Foreign Service may receive performance 21 pay in any year in amounts which exceed the per- 22 centage limitation specified in paragraph (2). Payments 23 under this paragraph to a member of the Senior For- 24 eign Service may not exceed $10,000 in any year, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 25 24 1 except that payments of up to $20,000 may be made 2 to up to 1 per centum of such members; and 3 (4) the total amount of basic salary plus perform- 4 ance pay received by any member of the Senior For- 5 eign Service may not exceed in any fiscal year the 6 salary provided by law for level I of the Federal Ex- 7 ecutive Salary Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312). 8 (c) The Secretary shall determine the amount of per- 9 formance pay as described in subsectii n (b)(2) available each 10 year for distribution among the several classes of members of 11 the Senior Foreign Service, and shall make distribution to 12 particular individuals on the basis of recommendations by se- 13 lection boards established under section 603. 14 (d) The President may grant awards of performance pay 15 as described in subsection (b)(3) on the basis of annual recom- 16 mendations by the Secretary of members of the Senior For- 17 eign Service who are nominated by their agencies as having 18 performed especially meritorious or distinguished service. 19 Recommendations by the Secretary under this subsection 20 shall be made on the basis of recommendations by special 21 interagency selection boards established by the Secretary for 22 the purpose of reviewing and evaluating the nominations of 23 agencies. 24 SEC. 442. WITHIN-CLASS SALARY INCREASES.-(a) 25 Any member of the Service receiving a salary under the For- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 26 25 1 eign Service Schedule shall receive an increase in salary at 2 periodic intervals to the next higher rate for the class in 3 which such member is serving unless the member's perform- 4 ance during any such interval is found in a review by a selec- 5 tion board established under section 603 to fall below the 6 standards of performance for his or her class. 7 (b) Without regard to any other law, the Secretary is 8 authorized to grant to any member of the Service to whom 9 subsection (a) applies additional increases in salary within the 10 salary range established for the class in which the member is 11 serving, based upon especially meritorious service. 12 SEC. 451. LOCAL COMPENSATION PLANS.-(a)(1) The 13 Secretary shall establish compensation plans for foreign na- 14 tional employees of the Service, and for United States citi- 15 zens employed in the Service abroad who are family mem- 16 bers of Government personnel described in section 333. Such 17 compensation plans shall be based upon prevailing wage 18 rates and compensation practices for corresponding types of 19 positions in the locality (including participation in local social 20 security plans) to the extent consistent with the public inter- 21 est. Compensation plans established under this section may 22 include provision for leave of absence with pay for foreign 23 national employees in accordance with prevailing law and 24 employment practices in the locality of employment without 25 regard to section 6310 of title 5, United States Code. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 27 26 1 (2) The Secretary may make supplemental payments to 2 any civil service annuitant who is a former foreign national employee of the Service (or is a survivor of a former foreign national employee of the Service) in order to offset exchange rate losses, if the annuity being paid such annuitant is based 6 on- 7 (A) a salary that was fixed in a foreign currency 8 that has appreciated in value in terms of the United 9 States dollar; and 10 (B) service in a country in which (as determined 11 by the Secretary) the average retirement benefits being 12 received by those who have retired from competitive 13 local organizations are superior to the local currency 14 value of civil service annuities plus any other retire- 15 ment benefits payable to foreign national employees 16 who have retired during similar time periods and after 17 comparable careers with the Government. 18 (b) For the purpose of performing functions abroad, any 19 agency or other Government establishment (including any in 20 the legislative or judicial branch) is authorized to administer 21 employment programs for its employees who are foreign na- 22 tionals or family members of Government personnel serving 23 abroad, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this 24 Act. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 28 27 1 (c) The Secretary may prescribe regulations governing 2 the establishment and administration of local compensation 3 plans under this section for the guidance of all agencies and 4 Government establishments. 5 SEC. 452. SALARIES OF CONSULAR AGENTS.-The 6 Secretary is authorized to establish the salary rate for each 7 consular agent, after taking into account the workload of the 8 consular agency and the prevailing wage rates in the locality 9 where it is located. 10 SEC. 453. COMPENSATION FOR IMPRISONED FOREIGN 11 NATIONAL EMPLOYEES.-(a) The head of any agency or 12 other Government establishment (including any in the legisla- 13 tive or judicial branch) may compensate any current or 14 former foreign national employee, including a foreign national 15 employee who worked under a personal services contract, 16 who is or has been imprisoned by a foreign government if the 17 Secretary (or, in the case of an employee of the Central In- 18 telligence Agency, the Director of Central Intelligence) de- 19 termines that such imprisonment is the result of the foreign 20 national's employment by the United States. Such compensa- 2.1 tion,,may.not exceed an amount. that the agency. head deter 22 mines approximates the salary and other benefits to which 23 the employee or former employee would have been entitled 24 had he or she remained employed during the period of such 25 imprisonment, and may be paid under such terms and condi- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 29 28 tions as the Secretary deems appropriate. For the purposes of this I section, the agency head shall have the same powers with respect to imprisoned foreign national employees and former employees as those of an agency head under sub- chapter VII of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, to the extent that such powers are consistent with this section. (b) Any period . of imprisonment of a foreign national which is compensable under this section shall be considered for purposes of any other employee benefit to be a period of employment by the Government, except that a period of imprisonment shall not be creditable- (1) for purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, unless the individual either- (A) was subject to section 8334(a) of such title during the period of his or her Government employment last preceding the imprisonment; or (B) qualified for annuity benefits under such subchapter III by reason of other service; or (2) for purposes of subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, unless the individual was employed by the Government at the time of his or her imprisonment. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 30 29 1 (c) No compensation or other benefit shall be awarded 2 under this section unless a claim therefor is filed within three 3 years after- 4 (1) the termination of the period of imprisonment 5 giving rise to the claim, or 6 (2) the date of the claimant's first opportunity 7 thereafter to file such a claim, as determined by the 8 appropriate agency head. 9 (d) The Secretary may prescribe regulations governing 10 payments under this section for the guidance of all agencies 11 and Government establishments. 12 SEC. 461. TEMPORARY SERVICE AS PRINCIPAL OFFI- 13 cER.-For such time as any member of the Service is tempo- 14 rarily in charge of a post during the absence or incapacity of 15 the principal officer he or she shall receive, in addition to the 16 basic salary for his or her class, an amount equal to that 17 portion which the Secretary may determine to be appropriate 18 of the difference between such salary and the basic salary 19 provided for the principal officer, or, if there be none, of the 20 former principal officer. 21 SEC. 462. SPECIAL ALLOWANCES.-The Secretary 22 may pay special allowances, in addition to compensation oth- 23 erwise authorized, to Foreign Service officers who are re- 24 quired because of the nature of their assignments to perform Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 31 30 1 additional work on a regular basis in substantial excess of 2 normal requirements. 3 CHAPTER 5-CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS 16 17 18 19 21 22. 23 24 5 SEC. 501. CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS.-The Sec- 6 retary shall designate and classify all positions to be occupied 7 by members of the Service (other than chiefs of mission), in- 8 cluding positions at posts abroad and in the Department. Po- 9 sition classifications under this section shall be established, 10 without regard to chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, 11 in relation to the salary classes established under chapter 4. 12 SEC. 511. ASSIGNMENTS TO FOREIGN SERVICE POSI- TIONS.-(a) The Secretary may assign a member of the Service, in accordance with merit principles, to any position classified under section 501 in which he or she is eligible to serve (other than as chief of mission), and may transfer a member from position to position as the needs of the Service may require. (b) Positions classified as Foreign Service positions nor- mally shall be filled by the assignment of members of the Foreign Service to those positions. Subject to that limita- tion- (1) Foreign Service positions may be filled by per- sonnel of the Department and, under interagency Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 32 31 1 agreements, personnel of other agencies (including 2 military personnel); and 3 (2) Senior Foreign Service positions may also be 4 filled by other members of the Service. 5 (c) The President may assign a member of the Service 6 serving under a career appointment to serve as charge d'af- 7 faires or otherwise as the head of a mission for such period as 8 the public interest may require. 9 SEC. 521. ASSIGNMENTS TO AGENCIES, INTERNA- 10 TIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND OTHER BODIES.-(a) The 11 Secretary may assign a member of the Service for duty- 12 (1) in a non-Foreign Service (including Senior Ex- 13 ecutive Service) position in the Department or another 14 agency, or in an international organization, internation- 15 al commission, or other international body; 16 (2) with domestic or international trade, labor, ag- 17 ricultural, scientific, or other conferences, congresses, 18 or gatherings; 19 (3) for special instruction, training, or orientation 20 at or with public or private nonprofit institutions, or 21 commercial firms; and 22 (4) in the United States, or in any territory or 23 possession thereof, or the Commonwealth of Puerto 24 Rico, with a State or local government, public school, 25 community college, or other public or private nonprofit Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 33 1 organization, including assignment to a Member or 2 office of the Congress so long as assignments under 3 this paragraph emphasize service outside Washington, 4 District of Columbia. 5 (b)(1) The salary of a member of the Service assigned 6 under this section shall. be the salary of the member's class, 7 irrespective of the salary of the position to which assigned, 8 and shall be paid from appropriations made available for the 9 payment of salaries and expenses of the Service. Such appro- 10 priations may be reimbursed for all or any part of the salaries 11 of members assigned under this section. 12 (2) A member of the Service assigned under subsection 13 (a)(4) to a Member or office of the Congress shall be deemed 14 to be an employee of the House of Representatives or the 15 Senate, as the case may be, for purposes of payment of travel 16 and other expenses. 17 (c) Assignments under this section shall not exceed four 18 years of continuous service for any member of the Service, 19 unless the Secretary approves an extension of such period in 20 special circumstances. 21 SEC. 531. SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES AND 22 ABROAD.-(a) Career personnel of the Service shall be obli- 23 gated to serve abroad, and shall be expected to serve abroad 24 for substantial portions of their careers. The Secretary shall 25 establish by regulation limitations upon assignments of mem- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 34 33 1 hers of the Service within the United States. No member of 2 the Service may be assigned to duty within the United States 3 for any period of continuous service exceeding eight years 4 unless the Secretary approves an extension of such period in 5 special circumstances. 6 (b) Consistent with the needs of the Service, the Secre- 7 tary shall seek to assign career members of the Service who 8 are citizens of the United States to duty within the United 9 States at least once during each period of fifteen years in the 10 Service. 11 (c) The Secretary may grant a sabbatical to a career 12 member of the Senior Foreign Service for not to exceed 13 eleven months in order to permit the member to engage in 14 study or uncompensated work experience which will contrib- 15 ute to the member's development and effectiveness. A sab- 16 batical may be granted under this subsection under conditions 17 specified by the Secretary in light of the provisions of section 18 3396(c) of title 5, United States Code, which apply to sabba- 19 ticals granted to members of the Senior Executive Service. 20 SEC. 541. TEMPORARY DETAILS.-A period of duty of 21 not more than six months in duration by a member of the 22 Service shall be considered a temporary detail. Such a detail, 23 whether at the commencement during the course of, or at the 24 close of an assignment, shall not be considered an assignment 25 within the meaning of this chapter. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 35 34 1 CHAPTER 6-PROMOTION AND RETENTION 2 SEC. 601. PROMOTIONS. BASED ON MERIT.-(a) Pro- 3 motions in the Service shall be based upon merit principles. 4 (b) Promotions of- 5 (1) members of the Senior Foreign Service, and 6 (2) members receiving salaries under the Foreign 7 Service Schedule (including promotions of such mem- 8 bers into the Senior Foreign Service), 9 shall be based upon the recommendations and rankings of 10 selection boards established under section 603, except that 11 the Secretary may by regulation specify categories of career 12 personnel receiving salaries under the Foreign Service 13 Schedule who may receive promotions on the basis of satis- 14 factory performance. 15 SEC. 602. PROMOTION INTO AND RETENTION IN THE 16 SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE.-(a) Promotions into the Senior 17 Foreign Service shall be recommended by selection boards 18 only from among those members of the Service who are serv- 19 ing under career appointments at class 1 of the Foreign Serv- 20 ice Schedule and who request that they be considered for 21 promotion into the Senior Foreign Service. The Secretary 22 shall prescribe the period (within any applicable time in class 23 limitation specified under section 641(a)) during which such 24 members may be considered for entry into the Senior Foreign 25 Service by selection boards. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 36 35 1 (b) Decisions by the Secretary on promotions into and 2 retention in the Senior Foreign Service shall take into ac- 3 count the needs of the Service to plan for the continuing 4 admission of new members and for effective career develop- 5 ment and reliable promotional opportunities. 6 (c) The affidavit requirements of sections 3332 and 7 3333(a) of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply-with 8 respect to a member of the Service who has previously com- 9 plied with those requirements and who subsequently is pro- 10 moted by appointment to any class in the Senior Foreign 11 Service without a break in service. 12 SEC. 603. SELECTION BOARDS.-The Secretary shall 13 establish selection boards to evaluate the performance of 14 members of the Senior Foreign Service and members receiv- 15 ing salaries under the Foreign Service Schedule. Selection 16 boards shall, in accordance with precepts prescribed by the 17 Secretary, rank the members of a class on the basis of rela- 18 tive performance and may make recommendations for- 19 (1) promotions under section 601(b); 20 (2) awards of performance pay under section 21 441(c); 22 (3) offer or renewal of limited career extensions as 23 described in section 641(b); and 24 (4) such other actions as the Secretary may pre- 25 scribe by regulation. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 37 36 1 SEC. 612. BASIS FOR SELECTION BOARD REVIEW.- 2 (a) Recommendations and rankings by selection boards shall 3 be based upon records of the character, ability, conduct, qual- 4 ity of work, industry, experience, dependability, and general 5 performance of members of the Service, including reports of 6 Foreign Service inspectors, performance evaluation reports of 7 supervisors, records of commendations, awards, reprimands, 8 and other disciplinary actions, and (with respect to the Senior 9 Foreign Service) records of current and prospective 10 assignments. 11 (b) Precepts for selection boards shall include a descrip- 12 tion of the needs of the Service for performance require- 13 ments, skills, and qualities to be considered in recommenda- 14 tions for promotion. The precepts for selection boards respon- 15 sible for recommending promotion into and within the Senior 16 Foreign Service shall emphasize performance which demon- 17 strates the strong policy formulation capabilities, executive 18 leadership qualities, and/or highly developed functional and 19 area expertise required for the Senior Foreign Service. 20 SEC. 613. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.-The rec- 21 ords described in section 612(a) shall be maintained in ac- 22 cordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. 23 Except to the extent that they pertain to the receipt, dis- 24 bursement, and accounting for public funds, such records 25 shall be confidential and subject to inspection only by the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 38 37 1 President, the Secretary, such officers and employees of the 2 Government as may be authorized by law or assigned by the 3 Secretary to work on such records, the legislative and appro- 4 priations committees of the Congress charged with consider- 5 ing legislation and appropriations for the Service, and repre- 6 sentatives duly authorized by such committees. Access to 7 such records relating to a member of the Service shall be 8 granted to such member, upon written request. . 9 SEC. 621. IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTION BOARD 10 RECOMMENDATIONS.-Recommendations for promotion 11 made by selection boards shall be submitted to the Secretary 12 in rank order by class or in rank order by specialization 13 within a class. The Secretary shall make promotions and, 14 15 16 with respect to the career Senior Foreign Service, shall make recommendations to the President for promotions, in accord- ance with the rankings of .the selection boards. However, in 17 special circumstances set forth by regulation, the Secretary 18 may remove an individual name from the rank order list sub- 19 mitted by a selection board or delay the promotion of an indi- 20 vidual named in such a list. 21 SEC. 631.. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROMO- 22 TION.-(a) The Secretary may, pursuant to a recommenda- 23 tion of the Foreign Service Grievance Board, an equal em- 24 ployment opportunity appeals examiner, or the Special Coun- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 39 38 1 sel of the Merit Systems Protection Board, or pursuant to a 2 decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board- 3 (1) recommend to the President a promotion of a 4 member of the Service; 5 (2) promote a member of the Service; or 6 (3) grant to a member of the Service performance 7 pay or a within-class salary increase. 8 (b) In special circumstances set forth by regulation, the 9 Secretary may make retroactive promotions and grants of 10 performance pay and within-class salary increases, and may 11 recommend retroactive promotions by the President, under 12 section 621 and subsection (a) of this section. 13 SEC. 641. RETIREMENT FOR EXPIRATION OF TIME IN 14 CLASS.-(a) The Secretary shall, by regulation, specify the 15 maximum time during which- 16 (1) career members of the Senior Foreign Service, 17 (2) Foreign Service officers, and 18 (3) career members in such other Foreign Service 19 personnel categories as may be designated by the Sec- 20 retary who are paid salaries comparable to the salaries 21 of Foreign Service officers, 22 may remain in class (or a combination of classes) without a 23 promotion. The Secretary may, by regulation, increase or de- 24 crease such maximum time for a class (or a combination of 25 classes) as the needs of the Service may require. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 40 39 1 (b) Members of the Service whose maximum time in 2 class under subsection (a) expires- 3 (1) after they have attained the highest class for 4 their respective personnel categories, or 5 (2) while they are serving as members of the 6 Senior Foreign Service in classes designated by the 7 Secretary, 8 may'continue to serve only under limited extensions of their 9 career appointments. Such limited extensions shall not 10 exceed five years in duration and may be granted and re- 11 newed by the Secretary in light of the recommendations of 12 selection boards established under section 602 and the needs 13 of the Service. Personnel serving under such limited career 14 extensions shall continue to be considered career members of 15 the Service. 16 (c) Any member of the Service who does not receive a 17 promotion within an applicable time in class limitation speci- 18 fied under subsection (a), or whose limited career extension 19 under subsection (b) is terminated or not renewed, shall be 20 retired from the Service and receive benefits in accordance 21 with section 643. 22 SEc. 642. RETIREMENT BASED ON RELATIVE PER- 23 FORMANCE.-(a) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations 24 concerning the standards of performance to be met by career 25 members of the Service who are citizens of the United Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 40 1 States. Whenever a selection board review indicates that the 2 performance of such a career member of the Service may not 3 meet the standards of performance for his or her class, the 4 Secretary shall provide for administrative review of the mem- 5 ber's performance. The review shall include an opportunity 6 for the member to be heard. 7 (b) In any case where the administrative review con- 8 ducted under subsection (a) substantiates that a member of 9 the Service has failed to meet the standards of performance 10 for his or her class, the member shall be retired from the 11 Service and receive benefits in accordance with section 643. 12 SEC. 643. RETIREMENT BENEFITS.-(a) A member of 13 the Service- 14 (1) whose limited extension of a career appoint- 15 ment under section 641(b) is terminated or not re- 16 newed; or 17 (2) who is otherwise retired under section 641 or 18 642- 19 (A) after becoming eligible for voluntary re- 20 tirement under section 835, or 21 (B) from the Senior Foreign Service or from 22 class 1 of the Foreign Service Schedule, 23 shall receive retirement benefits in accordance with section 24 821. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 42 41 1 (b) Any other member of the Service who is retired 2 under section 641 or 642 shall receive- 3 (1) one-twelfth of a year's salary at his or her 4 then current salary rate for each year of service and 5 proportionately for a fraction of a year, but not exceed- 6 ing a total of one year's salary at his or her then cur- 7 rent salary rate, payable without interest from the For- 8 eign Service Retirement and Disability Fund, in three 9 equal installments on the first day of January following 10 the member's retirement and on the two anniversaries 11 of this date immediately following: Provided, That in 12 special cases, the Secretary may accelerate or combine 13 the installments; and 14 (2) a refund of the contributions made to the For- 15 eign Service Retirement and Disability Fund as pro- 16 vided in section 841, except that in lieu of such refund 17 a member who has at least five years of service credit 18 toward retirement under the Foreign Service Retire- 19 ment and Disability System (excluding military or 20 naval service) may elect to receive retirement benefits 21 on reaching age sixty in accordance with section 821. 22 In the event that a member has elected to receive re- 23 tirement benefits and dies before reaching the age of 24 sixty his or her death shall be considered a death in 25 service within the meaning of section 832. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 42 1 (c) Notwithstanding section 3477 of the Revised Stat- 2 utes (31 U.S.C. 203) or any other law, a member of the ? 3 Service who is retired under section 641 or 642 shall have 4 the right to assign to any person or corporation the whole or 5 any part of the benefits receivable by him or her under sub- 6 section (b)(1). Any such assignment shall be on a form ap- 7 proved by the Secretary of the Treasury and a copy thereof 8 shall be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury by the 9 person executing the assignment. 10 SEC. 651. SEPARATION FOR CAUSE.-(a) The Secre- 11 tary may separate any member from the Service for such 12 cause as will promote the efficiency of the Service. No 13 member serving under a career appointment and paid a 14 salary specified for the Senior Foreign Service or in the For- 15 eign Service Schedule shall be so separated until he or she 16 has been granted a hearing before the Foreign Service 17 Grievance Board and the cause for separation established at 18 such hearing, unless the member waives in writing the right 19 to a hearing. This section shall also apply to any such 20 member of the Service who is in a probationary status or 21 whose appointment is.limited or temporary, when separation 22 is by reason of misconduct. The hearing provided under this 23 subsection shall be in lieu of any other administrative proce- 24 dure authorized or required by this or any other law. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 43 1 (b) Any participant in the Foreign Service Retirement 2 and Disability System separated under subsection (a) shall be 3 entitled to receive a refund of the contributions made by the 4 participant to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability 5 Fund as provided in section 841. Except in cases where the 6 Secretary determines that separation was based in whole or 7 in part on the ground of disloyalty to the United States, a 8 participant who has at least five years of service credit 9 toward retirement under this System (excluding military or 10 naval service) may elect, in lieu of such refund, to receive 11 retirement benefits on reaching age sixty in accordance with 12 section 821. 13 (c) Any member of the Service separated under subsec- 14 tion (a) who is not a participant in the Foreign Service Re- 15 tirement and Disability System shall be entitled only to such 16 benefit as shall accrue to him or her under the retirement 17 system in which the member is- a participant. 18 SEC. 661. TERMINATION OF LIMITED AND TEMPO- 19 RARY APPOINTMENTS.-(a) Except as provided in subsec- 20 tion (b), and notwithstanding' any other law, the Secretary 21 may terminate at any time the services of any member of the 22 Service who is paid a salary specified for the Senior Foreign 23 Service or in the Foreign Service Schedule or is a family 24 member serving under a local compensation plan, and who is 25 serving under a limited or temporary appointment. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 1 (b) The termination of a limited appointment described 2 in subsection (a) because of misconduct shall be subject to the 3 provisions of section 651. 4 SEC. 671. TERMINATION OF CONSULAR AGENTS AND 5 FOREIGN NATIONAL PERSONNEL.-Notwithstanding any 6 other law, the Secretary may terminate at any time the serv- 7 ices of any consular agent or foreign national employee after 8 giving due consideration to the criteria and procedures nor- mally followed in the locality in similar circumstances. CHAPTER 7-FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE, CAREER DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND ORIENTATION SEC. 701. FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE.-(a) The Secretary shall maintain and operate the Foreign Service In- 14 stitute (hereinafter the "Institute") originally established 15 under section 701 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 (60 16 Stat. 1018), in order to promote career development within 17 the Service and to provide necessary training and instruction 18 in the field of foreign- relations to personnel of the Service, 19 and of the Department and other agencies. The Institute 20 shall be headed by a Director, who shall be appointed by the 21 Secretary. 22 (b) The Secretary may, in addition, provide to members 23 of the families of such personnel in anticipation of their as- 24 signment abroad or while abroad- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 (1) appropriate orientation and language training; 2 and 3 (2) functional training for anticipated prospective 4 employment under section 333. 5 (c) To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall provide 6 training under this chapter which meets the needs of all 7 agencies, and other agencies shall :avoid duplicating the facili- 8 ties and training provided by the Secretary through the Insti- 9 tute and otherwise. 10 SEC. 702. FOREIGN LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS.- 11 The Secretary shall establish foreign language proficiency re- 12 quirements for members of the Service who are to be as- 13 signed abroad in order that posts abroad will be staffed by 14 personnel having a useful knowledge of the language or 15 dialect common to the country where the post is located. The 16 Secretary shall arrange for appropriate language training of 17 members of the Service at the Institute or elsewhere in order 18 to assist in meeting such requirements. 19 SEC. 703. TRAINING AUTHORITIES.-In the exercise 20 of functions under this chapter, the Secretary may- 21 (1) provide for the general nature of the training 22 and instruction to be furnished in the Institute, includ- 23 ing functional and geographic area specializations; 24 (2) correlate training and instruction with courses 25 given at other Government institutions and at private Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 47 46 1 institutions which furnish training and instruction 2 useful in the field of foreign affairs; 3 (3) encourage and foster programs complementary 4 to those in the Institute, including through grants and 5 other gratuitous assistance to nonprofit institutions co- 6 operating in any of the programs under this chapter; 7 (4) pay the tuition and other expenses of person- 8 nel assigned or detailed in accordance with law for 9 special instruction or training, including orientation, 10 language, and career development training; 11 (5) employ personnel in accordance with the civil 12 service laws and regulations and chapter 51 and sub- 13 chapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States 14 Code, except that, when deemed necessary by the Sec- 15 retary for the effective administration of this chapter, 16 personnel may be employed without regard to the civil 17 service laws and regulations and chapter 51 and sub- 18 chapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States 19 Code, at any of the rates specified in the General 20 Schedule described in section 5104 of title 5, United 21 States Code (including in the absence of suitably quali- 22 fied United States citizens persons who are not citizens 23 of the United States), by appointment on a full-time, 24 part-time, or intermittent basis or by contract for 25 services in the United States or abroad; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 48 47 1 (6) provide special monetary or other incentives to 2 encourage Foreign Service personnel to acquire or 3 retain proficiency in esoteric foreign .languages or 4. special abilities needed in the Service; and 5 (7) acquire such real and personnel property and 6 equipment as may be necessary for the establishment, 7 maintenance, and operation of the facilities necessary 8 to carry out the provisions of this chapter without 9 regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 10 U.S.C. 5) and section 302 of the Federal Property and 11 Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 252). 12 SEC. 704. TRAINING AND ORIENTATION GRANTS.-(a) 13 To facilitate orientation' and language training provided to 14 members of families of Government personnel under this 15 chapter, the Secretary may make grants to family members 16 attending approved orientation and language programs of 17 study. No such grant may exceed the amount actually ex- 18 pended for necessary costs incurred in conjunction with such 19 attendance and in no event may any such grant exceed $300 20 per month per individual. No individual may receive such a 21 grant for more than six months in connection with any one 22 assignment. 23 . (b) If a member of the family, of a member of the Service 24 who is assigned abroad is unable to participate in language 25 training provided by the Department at the Institute or else- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 49 48 1 where, the Secretary may compensate that family member 2 for all or part of the costs of the language training, related to 3 the assignment abroad, which is undertaken at a public or 4 private institution. 5 SEC. 705. CAREER COUNSELING.-(a) In order to 6 facilitate their transition from the Service, the Secretary may 7 provide professional career counseling, advice, and placement 8 assistance, by contract or otherwise, to members and former 9 members of the Service other than those separated for cause. 10 (b) The Secretary may facilitate the employment of 11 spouses of Foreign Service personnel by- 12 (1) providing regular career counseling for such 13 spouses; 14 (2) maintaining a centralized system for cataloging 15 their skills and the various governmental and nongov- 16 ernmental overseas employment opportunities available 17 to them; and 18 (3) otherwise assisting them in obtaining overseas 19 employment. 20 CHAPTER 8-FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND 21 DISABILITY SYSTEM 22 SEC. 801. ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF 23 THE SYSTEM.-(a) In accordance with such regulations as 24 the President may prescribe, the Secretary shall administer 25 the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System (here- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 50 49 1 inafter the "System"), originally established by section 18 of 2 the Act of May 24, 1924 (43 Stat. 144). 3 (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall maintain the 4 special fund, known as the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund (hereinafter the "Fund"), originally consti- tuted by section 18 of the Act of May 24, 1924 (43 Stat. 144). SEC. 803. PARTICIPANTS.-(a) The following persons (hereinafter "participants") shall be entitled to the benefits of the System: (1) every person serving under a career appoint- ment- (A) in the Senior Foreign Service, or (B) under the Foreign Service Schedule; and (2) every chief of mission, not otherwise entitled to be a participant, who- (A) has served as chief of mission for an aggregate period of twenty years or more, and (B) has paid into the Fund a special contri- bution for each year of such service in accordance with section 811. (b) Any otherwise eligible person who is appointed to a position by the President, by and with the advice and consent 24 of the Senate or by the President alone, shall not by virtue of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 51 50 1 the acceptance of such appointment cease to be eligible to 2 participate in the System. 3 SEC. 804. DEFINITIONS.-When used in this chapter, 4 unless otherwise specified, the term- 5 (1) "annuitant" means any person, including a former participant or survivor, who meets all require- ments for an annuity from the Fund under this or any other Act and who has filed a claim therefor; (2) "child" means- (A) an unmarried child of a participant under the age of eighteen years (or an unmarried child regardless of age who because of physical or mental disability incurred before age eighteen is incapable of self-support) who is- (i) an offspring, or adopted child of the participant, (ii) a stepchild or recognized natural child, who received more than one-half sup- port from the participant, or (iii) a child who lived with and for whom a petition of adoption was filed by a participant, and who is adopted by the sur- viving spouse of the participant after the latter's death; and Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 52 51 1 (B) an unmarried student below age twenty- 2 two (for this purpose a child whose twenty-second 3 birthday occurs before July 1 or after August 31 4 of a calendar year, and while a student is deemed 5 to have become twenty-two years of age on the 6 first day of July after that birthday); 7 (3) "Foreign Service normal cost" means the 8 level percentage of payroll required to be deposited in 9 the Fund to meet the cost of benefits payable under 10 the System (computed in accordance with generally ac- 11 cepted actuarial practice on an entry-age basis) less the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 value of retirement benefits earned under another re- tirement system for Government employees and less the cost of credit allowed for military service; (4) "Fund balance" means the sum of- (A) the investments of the Fund calculated at par value, plus (B) the cash balance of the Fund on the books of the Treasury; (5) "lump-sum credit" means the compulsory and special contributions to a participant's or former par- ticipant's credit in the Fund plus interest thereon at 4 per centum a year compounded annually to December 31, 1976, and after such date for a participant who separates from the Service after completing at least Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 53 52 one year of civilian service and before completing five years of such service, at the rate of 3 per centum per year to the date of separation. Interest shall not be paid for a fractional part of a month in the total serv- ice on or compulsory and special contributions from an annuitant for recall service or other service performed after the date of separation which forms the basis for (6) "military and naval service" means honorable annuity; i Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or pred- (B) in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service after June 30, 1960, or (C) as a commissioned officer of the National active service- (A) in the States, J une 30, 1961, ecessor organization after I 1, r'~F but does not include service in the National Guard except when ordered to active duty in the service of the United States; (7) "student" means a child regularly pursuing a full-time course of study or training in residence in a high school, trade) school, technical or vocational insti- tute, junior college, college, university or comparable recognized educational institution (a child who is a stu- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 53 dent shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a stu- dent during any period between school years, semes- ters or terms if the period of nonattendance does not exceed five calendar months and if the child shows to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he or she has a bona fide intention of continuing to pursue his or her course of study during, the school year, semester, or term immediately following such period); (8) "surviving spouse" means the surviving wife or husband of a participant or annuitant who, in the case of a death in Service or marriage after, retirement, was married to the participant or annuitant for at least one year immediately preceding his or her death or is the parent of a child born of the marriage; (9) "unfunded liability" means the estimated excess of the present value of all benefits payable from the Fund over the sum of- (A) the present value of deductions to be withheld from the future basic ' salary of partici- pants and of future agency contributions to be made in their behalf, plus (B) the present value of Government pay- ments to the Fund under section 865, plus (C) the Fund balance as of the date the un- funded liability is determined. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 55 54 1 SEC. 811. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND.-(a) Seven 2 per centum of the basic salary received by each participant 3 shall be contributed to the Fund for the payment of annuities, 4 cash benefits, refunds, and allowances. An equal sum shall 5 also be contributed from the respective appropriation or fund 6 which is used for payment of the participant's salary. The 7 amounts deducted and withheld from basic salary together 8 with the amounts so contributed from the appropriation or 9 fund shall be deposited by the Department in the Fund. 10 (b) Each participant shall be deemed to consent and 11 agree to such deductions from basic salary. Payment less 12 such deductions shall be a full and complete discharge and 13 acquittance of all claims and demands whatsoever for all reg- 14 ular services during the period covered by such payment, 15 except the right to the benefits to which the participant shall 16 be entitled under this Act, notwithstanding any law, rule, or 17 regulation affecting the individual's salary. 18 (c)(1) If a member of the Service under another retire- 19 ment system for Government employees becomes a partici- 20 pant in the System by direct transfer, such member's total. 21 contributions and deposits that would otherwise be refundable 22 on separation (except voluntary contributions), including in- 23 terest thereon, shall be transferred to the Fund effective as of 24 the date such member becomes a participant in the System. 25 Each such member shall be deemed to consent to the transfer Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 56 55 1 of such funds and such transfer shall be a complete discharge 2 and acquittance of all claims and demands against the other 3 Government retirement fund on account of service rendered 4 prior to becoming a participant in the System. 5 (2) No member of the Service whose contributions are 6 transferred to the Fund under paragraph (1) shall be required 7 to make additional contributions for periods of service for 8 which required contributions were made to the other Govern- 9 ment retirement fund; nor shall any refund be made to any 10 such member on account of contributions made during any 11 period to the other Government retirement fund at a higher 12 rate than that fixed by subsection (d). 13 (d) Any participant. credited. with civilian service after 14 July 1, 1924- 15 (1) for which no retirement contributions, deduc- 16 tions, or deposits have been made, or 17 (2) for which a refund of such contributions, de- 18 ductions, or deposits has been made which has not 19 been redeposited, 20 may make a special contribution to the Fund equal to the 21 following percentages of basic salary received for such 22 service: Per centum of Service basic salary July 1, 1924, through October 15, 1960, inclusive ......................... 5 October 16, 1960, through December 31, 1969, inclusive .............. 61/2 On and after January 1, 1970 ........................................................ 7 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 57 56 1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, a special contribution for 2 prior nondeposit service as a National Guard technician 3 which would be creditable toward retirement under sub- 4 chapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, and 5 for which a special contribution has not been made, shall be 6 equal to the special contribution for such service computed in 7 accordance with the above schedule multiplied by the per- 8 centage of such service that is creditable under section 851. 9 Special contributions shall include interest computed from the 10 midpoint of each service period included in the computation, 11 or from the date refund was paid to the date of payment of 12 the special contribution or commencing date of annuity, whichever is earlier. Interest shall be compounded at the annual rate of 4 per centuni\to December 31, 1976, and at 3 per centum thereafter. No interest shall be charged on special contributions for any period) of separation from Government service which began before October 1, 1956. Special contri- butions may be paid in installments (including by allotment of pay) when authorized by the Secretary. (e) No contributions shall be required for any period of military or naval service, or for any period for which credit is allowed to persons of Japanese ancestry under section 851 for periods of internment during World War II. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 58 57 1 (f) A participant or survivor may make a special contri- 2 bution at any time before receipt of annuity and may author- 3 ize payment by offset against initial annuity accruals. 4 SEC. 821. COMPUTATION OF ANNUITIES.-(a) The an- 5 nuity of a participant shall be equal to 2 per centum of his or 6 her average basic salary for the highest three consecutive 7 years of service multiplied by the number of years, not ex- 8 ceeding thirty-five, of service credit obtained in accordance 9 with sections 851 and 853. However, the highest three years 10 of service shall be used in computing the annuity of any par- 11 ticipant who serves as chief of mission and whose continuity 12 of service as such is interrupted prior to retirement by ap- 13 pointment or assignment to any other position determined by 14 the Secretary to be of comparable importance. In determin- 15 ing the aggregate period of service upon which the annuity is 16 to be based, the fractional part of a month, if any, shall not 17 be counted. The annuity shall be reduced by 10 per centum 18 of any special contribution described in section 811(d) due for 19 service for which no contributions were made and remaining 20 unpaid unless the participant elects to eliminate the service 21 involved for purposes of annuity computation. 22 (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any married 23 participant who retires shall receive a reduced annuity and 24 provide a maximum survivor annuity for his or her spouse. 25 Such a participant's annuity or any portion thereof designat- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 59 58 1 ed in writing by the participant as the base for the survivor 2 benefit shall be reduced by 21/2 per centum of the first 3 $3,600 plus 10 per centum of any amount over $3,600. If an 4 annuitant entitled to receive a reduced annuity under this 5 subsection dies and is survived by a spouse, a survivor annu- 6 ity shall be paid to the surviving spouse equal to 55 per 7 centum of the full amount of the participant's annuity com- 8 puted under subsection (a), or by 55 per centum of any lesser 9 amount the annuitant designated under paragraph (2) at the 10 time of retirement as the base for the survivor benefit. 11 (2) A married participant may elect in writing at the 12 time of retirement to waive or reduce the maximum survivor 13 annuity for his or her spouse described in paragraph (1). In 14 recognition of the special sacrifices made by spouses of For- 15 eign Service personnel, whose opportunities to achieve eco- 16 nomic independence and self-sufficiency are severely 17 curtailed by the disruptions of frequent reassignment and by 18 the inherent limitations of service abroad on employment and 19 career development, such an election may be made only with 20 the written concurrence of the participant's spouse if the 21 spouse has resided with the participant on assignments in the 22 Service, including assignments abroad, for an aggregate 23 period of ten years or more. 24 (3) An annuity payable from the Fund to a surviving 25 spouse shall commence on the day after the annuitant dies Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 10 11 12 13 14 60 59 1 and shall terminate on the last day of the month before the 2 survivor's remarriage prior to attaining age sixty, or death. If 3 a survivor annuity is so terminated because of remarriage, it 4 shall be restored at the same rate commencing on the date 5 such remarriage is terminated if any lump sum paid upon 6 termination of the annuity is returned to the Fund. 7 (c)(1) If an annuitant dies and is survived by a spouse 8 and by a child or children, in addition to the annuity payable 9 to the surviving spouse, there shall be paid to or on behalf of 15 an annuity equal to the smaller of- 16 (A) $1,080, or 17 (B) $3,240 divided by the number of children. 18 (3) The amounts specified in this subsection are subject 19 to- 20 (A) cost-of-living adjustments as specified under 21 section 882(c)(3), and 22 (B) the minimum specified in subsection (1) of this 23 section. 24 (d) If a surviving spouse dies or the annuity of a child is 25 terminated, the annuities of any remaining children shall be each child an annuity equal to the smaller of- (A) $900, or (B) $2,700 divided by the number of children. (2) If an annuitant dies and is not survived by a spouse but by a child or children, each surviving child shall be paid Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 60 1 recomputed and paid as though such spouse or child had not 2 survived the participant. If the annuity to a surviving child is 3 initiated or resumed, the annuities of any other children shall 4 be recomputed and paid from that date as though the annu- 5 ities to all currently eligible children in the family were then 6 being initiated. 7 (e) The annuity payable to a child under subsection (c) 8 or (d) shall begin on the day after the participant dies, or if 9 the child is not then qualified, on the first day of the month in 10 which the child becomes eligible. A child's annuity shall ter- 11 minate on the last day of the month which precedes the 12 month in which eligibility ceases. 13 (f) At the time of retirement an unmarried participant 14 may elect to receive a reduced annuity and to provide for an 15 annuity equal to 55 per centum of the reduced annuity pay- 16 able after his or her death to a beneficiary whose name shall 17 be designated in writing to the Secretary. The annuity pay- 18 able to a participant making such election shall be reduced by 19 10 per centum of an annuity computed as provided in subsec- 20 tion (a), and by 5 per centum of an annuity so computed for 21 each full five years the person designated is younger than the 22 retiring participant, but such total reduction shall not exceed 23 40 per centum. No such election of a reduced annuity pay- 24 able to a beneficiary shall be valid until the participant shall 25 have satisfactorily passed a physical examination as pre- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 61 .1 scribed by the Secretary. The annuity payable to a benefici- 2 ary under. this subsection shall begin on the day after the 3 annuitant dies and shall terminate on the last day of the 4 month preceding the survivor's death. An annuity which is 5 reduced under this subsection or any similar prior provision 6 of law shall, effective the first day of the month following the 7 death of the individual named under this subsection, be re- 8 computed and paid as if the annuity had not been so reduced. 9 (g) An annuitant who was unmarried at retirement and 10 who later marries may, within one year after such marriage, 11 irrevocably elect in writing a reduced annuity with benefit to 12 any surviving spouse who qualifies under section 804(8). Re- 13 ceipt by the Secretary of notice of an election under this sub- 14 section voids prospectively any election previously made 15 under subsection (f). The reduction in annuity required by an 16 election under this subsection shall be computed and the 17 amount of the survivor annuity shall be determined as if the 18 election were made under subsection (b)(1). The annuity re- 19 duction or recomputation shall be effective the first day of the 20 month beginning one year after the date of marriage. 21 (h) A surviving spouse shall' not. become entitled to a 22 survivor annuity or to the restoration of a survivor annuity 23 payable from the Fund unless the survivor elects to receive it 24 instead of any other survivor annuity to which he or she may Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 63 62 . 1 be entitled under this or any other retirement system for 2 Government employees. 3 (i) Any married annuitant who reverts to retired status 4 with entitlement to a supplemental annuity under section 871 5 shall, unless the annuitant elects in writing to the contrary at 6 that time (subject to the same conditions as are specified in 7 subsection (b)(2) of this section), have the supplemental annu- 8 ity reduced by 10 per centum to provide a supplemental 9 survivor annuity for his or her spouse. Such supplemental 10 survivor annuity shall be equal to 55 per centum of the annu- 11 itant's supplemental annuity and shall be payable to a surviv- 12 ing spouse to whom the annuitant was married at the time of 13 reversion to retired status or to whom the annuitant had been 14 married for at least one year at the time of death or who is 15 the parent of a child born of the marriage. 16 (j) An annuity which is reduced under this section or 17 any similar prior provision of law to provide a survivor bene- 18 fit for a spouse shall, for each full month during which an 19 annuitant is not married (or is remarried if there is no elec- 20 tion in effect under the following sentence), be recomputed 21 and paid as if the annuity had not been so reduced. Upon 22 remarriage the retired participant may irrevocably elect 23 during such marriage, in a signed writing received by the 24 Secretary within one year after such remarriage, a reduction 25 in annuity for the purpose of allowing an annuity for the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 63 1 annuitant's spouse in the event such spouse survives the an- 2 nuitant. Such reduction shall be equal to the reduction in 3 effect immediately before the dissolution of the previous mar- riage, and shall be effective the first day of the first month 4 5 beginning one year after the date of remarriage. A survivor 6 annuity elected under this subsection shall be treated in all 7 respects as a survivor annuity elected under subsection (b)(1). 8 (k) The Secretary shall, on an annual basis, inform each 9 participant of his or her right of election under subsections (g) 10 and (j). 11 (1)(1) The monthly rate of an annuity payable under this 12 chapter to an annuitant, or to a survivor annuitant other than 13 a child, shall not be less than the smallest primary insurance 14 amount, including any cost-of-living increase added to that 15 amount, authorized to be paid from time to time under title II 16 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). 17 (2) The monthly rate of an annuity payable under this 18 chapter to a surviving child shall not be less than the small- 19 est primary insurance amount, including any cost-of-living in- 20 crease added to that amount, authorized to be paid from time 21 to time under title II of the Social. Security Act (42 U.S.C. 22 401 et seq.) or three times such primary insurance amount 23 divided by the number of surviving children entitled to an 24 annuity, whichever is the lesser. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 65 64 1 (3) This subsection shall not apply to an annuitant or to 2 a survivor who is or becomes entitled to receive from the 3 United States an annuity or retired pay under any other civil- 4 ian or military retirement system, benefits under title II of 5 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), a pension, 6 veterans' compensation, or any other periodic payment of a 7 similar nature, when the monthly rate thereof is equal to or 8 greater than the smallest primary insurance amount, includ- 9 ing any cost-of-living increase added to that amount, author- 10 ized to be paid from time to time under title II of the Social 11 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). 12 SEC. 822. PAYMENT OF ANNUITY.-(a) Except as 13 otherwise provided, the annuity of a former participant who 14 has met the eligibility requirements for annuity shall com- 15 mence on the day after separation from the Service or on the 16 day after pay ceases. The annuity of a former participant 17 who is entitled to a deferred annuity under this Act shall 18 become effective on the day he or she reaches age sixty. 19 (b) The annuity to a survivor shall become effective as 20 otherwise specified but shall not be paid until the survivor 21 submits an application therefor supported by such proof of 22 eligibility as the Secretary may require. If such application or 23 proof of eligibility is not submitted during an otherwise eligi- 24 ble person's lifetime, no annuity shall be due or payable to 25 his or her estate. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 66 65 1 (c) An individual entitled to annuity from the Fund may 2 decline to accept all or any part of the annuity by submitting 3 a. signed waiver to the Secretary. The waiver may be re- 4 voked in writing. at any time. Payment of the annuity waived 5 may not be made for the period during which the waiver was 6 in effect. 7 (d) Recovery.of overpayments under this chapter may 8 not be made from an individual when, in the judgment of the 9 Secretary, the individual is without fault and recovery would 10 be against equity and good conscience or administratively 11 infeasible. 12 SEC. 831. RETIREMENT FOR DISABILITY OR INCA- 13 PACITY.-(a) Any participant who has five years of service 14 credit toward retirement under the System, excluding mili- 15 tary or naval service, and who becomes totally disabled or 16 incapacitated for useful and efficient service by reason of dis- 17 ease, illness, or injury (not due to the participant's vicious 18 habits, intemperance, or willful conduct), shall, upon his or 19 her own application or upon order of the Secretary, be retired 20 on an annuity computed as prescribed in section 821. If the 21 disabled or incapacitated participant has less than twenty 22 years of service credit toward retirement under the System at 23 the time of retirement, his or her annuity shall be computed 24 on the assumption that the participant has had twenty years 25 of service, but the additional service credit that may accrue Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 67 66 1 to a participant under this subsection shall in no case exceed 2 the difference between his or her age at the time of retire- 3 ment and age sixty. 4 (b) In each case, the participant shall be given a physi- 5 cal examination by one or more duly qualified physicians or 6 surgeons designated by the Secretary to conduct examina- 7 tions. Disability shall be determined by the Secretary on the 8 basis of the advice of such physicians or surgeons. Unless the 9 disability is permanent, like examinations shall be made an- 10 nually until the annuitant has reached age sixty. If the Secre- 11 tary determines on the basis of the advice of one or more 12 duly qualified physicians or surgeons conducting such exami- 13 nations that an annuitant has recovered to the extent that he 14 or she can return to duty, the annuitant may apply for rein- 15 statement or reappointment in the Service within one year 16 from the date recovery is determined. Upon application the 17 Secretary shall reinstate such recovered disability annuitant 18 in the class in which the annuitant was serving at time of 19 retirement, or the Secretary may, taking into consideration 20 the age, qualifications, and experience of such annuitant, and 21 the present class of his or her contemporaries in the Service, 22 appoint or recommend that the President appoint the annu- 23 itant to a higher class. Payment of the annuity shall continue 24 until a date six months after the date of the examination 25 showing recovery or until the date of reinstatement or reap- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 68 67 1 pointment in the Service, whichever is earlier. Fees for ex- 2 aminations under this section together with reasonable trav- 3 eling and other expenses incurred in order to submit to exam- 4 ination, shall be paid out of the Fund. If the annuitant fails to 5 submit to examination as required under this subsection, pay- 6 ment of the annuity shall be suspended until continuance of 7 the disability is satisfactorily established. 8 (c) If a recovered disability annuitant whose annuity is 9 discontinued is for any reason not reinstated or reappointed 10 in the Service, he or she shall be considered to have been 11 separated within the meaning of section 834 as of the date of 12 retirement for disability and shall, after the discontinuance of 13 the disability annuity, be entitled to the benefit of that section 14 or of section 841 except that he or she may elect voluntary 15 retirement if eligible under section 835. 16 (d) No participant shall be entitled to receive an annuity 17 under this Act and compensation for injury or disability to 18 himself or herself under subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, 19 United States Code, covering the same period of time, except 20 that, a participant may simultaneously receive both an annu- 21 ity under this section and scheduled disability payments 22 under section 8107 of title 5, United States Code. This sub- 23 section shall not bar the right of any claimant to the greater 24 benefit conferred by either this Act or such subchapter for 25 any part of the same period of time. Neither this subsection Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 69 68 1 nor any provision of such subchapter shall be so construed as 2 to deny the right of any participant to receive an annuity 3 under this Act and to receive concurrently any payment 4 under such subchapter by reason of the death of any other 5 person. 6 (e) Notwithstanding any other law, the right of any 7 person entitled to an annuity under this Act shall not be af- 8 fected because such person has received an award of compen- 9 sation in a lump sum under section 8135 of title 5, United 10 States Code, except that where such annuity is payable on 11 account of the same disability for which compensation under 12 such section has been paid, so much of such compensation as 13 has been paid for any period extended beyond the date such 14 15 16 annuity becomes effective, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall be refunded to the Department of Labor, to be paid into the Federal Employees' Compensation Fund. 17 Before such person shall receive such annuity he or she 18 shall- 19 (1) refund to the Department of Labor the amount 20 representing such commuted payments for such 21 extended period, or 22 (2) authorize the deduction of such amount from 23 the annuity payable under this Act, which amount 24 shall be transmitted to the Department of Labor for re- 25 imbursement to such Fund. (Deductions from such Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 70 69 1 annuity may be made from accrued and accruing 2 payments, or may be prorated against and paid from 3 accruing payments in such manner as the Secretary of 4 Labor shall determine, whenever he or she finds that 5 the financial circumstances of the annuitant are such as 6 to warrant deferred refunding.) 7 (f) A claim may be allowed under this section only if the 8 application if filed with the Secretary before the participant is 9 separated from the Service or within one year thereafter. 10 This time limitation may be waived by the Secretary for a 11 participant who at the date of separation from the Service or 12 within one year thereafter is mentally incompetent, if the ap- 13 plication is filed with the Secretary within one year from the 14 date of restoration of the participant to competency or the 15 appointment of a fiduciary, whichever is earlier. 16 SEC. 832. DEATH IN SERVICE.-(a) If a participant 17 dies and no claim for annuity is payable under this Act, the 18 lump-sum credit shall be paid in accordance with section 841. 19 (b). If a participant who has at least eighteen months of 20 civilian service credit toward retirement under the System 21 dies before separation or retirement from the Service and is 22 survived by a spouse, such surviving spouse shall be entitled 23 to an annuity equal to 55 per centum of the annuity comput- 24 ed in accordance with subsection (e) of this section and sec- 25 tion 821(a). If the participant had less than three years Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 71 70 1 creditable civilian service at the time of death, the survivor 2 annuity shall be computed on the basis of the average salary ? 3 for the entire period of such service. 4 (c) If a participant who has at least eighteen months of ? 5 civilian service credit toward retirement under the System 6 dies before separation or retirement from the Service and is 7 survived by a spouse and a child or children, each surviving 8 child shall be entitled to an annuity computed in accordance 9 with subsections (c)(1) and (d) of section 821. 10 (d) If a participant who has at least eighteen months of 11 civilian service credit toward retirement under the System 12 dies before separation or retirement from the Service and is 13 not survived by a spouse, but by a child or children, each 14 surviving child shall be entitled to an annuity computed in 15 accordance with subsections (c)(2) and (d) of section 821. 16 (e) If, at the time of his or her death, the participant had 17 less than twenty years of service credit toward retirement 18 under the System, the annuity payable in accordance with 19 subsection (b) shall be computed in accordance with section 20 821 on the assumption he or she has had twenty years of 21 service, but the additional service credit that may accrue to a 22 deceased participant under this subsection shall in no case 23 exceed the difference between his or her age on the date of 24 death and age sixty. In all cases arising under subsection (b), Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 72 71 1 (c), (d), or (e), it shall be assumed that the deceased partici- 2 pant was qualified for retirement on the date of death. 3 (f) If an annuitant who elected, a reduced annuity dies in 4 service after being recalled under section 324 and is survived 5 by a spouse entitled to a survivor annuity based on such an 6 election, such survivor annuity shall be computed as if the 7 recall service had otherwise terminated on the day of death 8 and the deceased's annuity had been resumed in accordance 9 with section 871. If such death occurs after the annuitant 10 had completed sufficient recall service to attain eligibility for 11 a supplemental annuity, a surviving spouse, shall be entitled 12 to elect, in addition to any other benefits and in lieu of a 13 refund of retirement contributions made during the recall 14 service, a supplemental survivor annuity computed and paid 15 under section 821(i) as if the recall service had otherwise 16 terminated. If the annuitant had completed sufficient recall 17 service to attain eligibility to have his or her annuity deter- 18 mined anew, a surviving spouse may elect, in lieu of any 19 other survivor benefit under this chapter, to have the annu- 20 itant's rights redetermined and to receive a survivor annuity 21 computed under subsection (b) on the basis of the annuitant's 22 total service. 23 (g) Annuities that become payable under this section 24 shall commence, terminate, and be resumed in accordance Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 73 72 1 with subsection (b)(2), (e), or (h) of section 821, as appropri- 2 ate. 3 SEC. 834. DISCONTINUED SERVICE RETIREMENT.- 4 Any participant who voluntarily separates from the Service 5 after obtaining at least five years of service credit toward 6 retirement under the System, excluding military or naval 7 service, may upon separation from the Service or at any time 8 prior to becoming eligible for an annuity elect to have his or 9 her contributions to the Fund returned in accordance with 10 section 841, or to leave his or her contributions in the Fund 11 and receive an annuity, computed as prescribed in section 12 821, commencing at age sixty. 13 SEC. 835. VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT.-Any partici- 14 pant who is at least fifty years of age and has rendered 15 twenty years of creditable service, including service within 16 the meaning of section 853, may on his or her own applica- 17 tion and with the consent of the Secretary be retired from the 18 Service and receive retirement benefits in accordance with 19 section 821. 20 SEC. 836. MANDATORY RETIREMENT.-(a) Except as 21 provided in subsection (b), any participant shall be retired 22 from the Service at the end of the month in which the partici- 23 pant reaches age sixty, and shall receive retirement benefits 24 in accordance with section 821. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 74 73 1 (b) Any participant who reaches age sixty while occupy- 2 ing a position to which he or she was appointed by the Presi- 3 dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may ? 4 continue to serve until that appointment is terminated. In 5 addition, whenever the Secretary shall determine it to be in 6 the public interest, any participant who has reached age sixty 7 may be retained on active service for a period not to exceed 8 five years. Any participant who completes a period of service 9 after reaching age sixty as authorized by this subsection shall 10 be retired at the end of the month in which such authorized 11 service is completed. 12 SEC. 837. RETIREMENT OF FORMER PRESIDENTIAL 13 APPOINTEES.-If a member of the Service who is a partici- 14 pant in the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability 15 System completes an assignment under section 302(b) in a 16 position to which he or she was appointed by the President, 17 and if within three months of the termination of such assign- 18 ment (plus any period of authorized leave) has not been reas- 19 signed, the member shall be retired from the Service and 20 receive retirement benefits in accordance with section 821. 21 SEC. 841. LUMP-SUM PAYMENTS.-(a) Whenever a 22 participant becomes separated from the Service without be- 23 coming eligible for an annuity or a deferred annuity under 24 this chapter, a lump-sum credit shall be paid to the partici- 25 pant. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 75 74 1 (b) Whenever an annuitant becomes separated from the 2 Service following a period of recall service without becoming 3 eligible for a supplemental or recomputed annuity under sec- 4 tion 871, the annuitant's compulsory contributions to the 5 Fund for such service, together with any special contribu- 6 tions the annuitant may have made for other service per- 7 formed after the date of separation from the Service which 8 forms the basis for annuity, shall be returned. 9 (c) If all annuity rights under this chapter based on the 10 service of a deceased participant or annuitant terminate 11 before the total annuity paid equals the lump-sum credit, the 12 difference shall be paid in the order of precedence shown in 13 subsection (f). 14 (d) If a participant or former participant dies and is not 15 survived by a person eligible for an annuity under this chap- 16 ter or by such a person or persons all of whose annuity rights 17 terminate before a claim for survivor annuity is filed, the 18 lump-sum credit shall be paid in accordance with sub- 19 section (f). 20 (e) If an annuitant who was a former participant dies, 21 annuity accrued and unpaid shall be paid in accordance with 22 subsection (f). 23 (f) Payments authorized in subsections (c) through (e) 24 shall be paid in the following order of precedence to such 25 person or persons surviving the participant and alive on the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 76 75 1 date entitlement to the payment arises, upon the establish- 2 ment of a valid claim therefor, and such payment shall be a 3 bar to recovery by any other person- 4 (1) to the beneficiary or beneficiaries last desig- 5 nated by the participant before or after retirement in a 6 signed and witnessed writing received by the Secretary 7 prior to the participant's death, for which purpose a 8 designation, change, or cancellation of beneficiary in a 9 will or other document not so executed and filed shall 10 have no force or effect; 11 (2) if there be no such beneficiary, to the surviv- 12 ing wife or husband of such participant; 13 (3) if none of the above, to the child (without 14 regard to the definition in section 804(2)) or children of 15 such participant (including adopted and natural children 16 but not stepchildren) and descendants of deceased chil- 17 dren by representation; 18 (4) if none of the above,' to the parents of such 19 participant or the survivor of them; 20 (5) if none of the above, to the duly appointed ex- 21 ecutor or administrator of the estate of such participant 22 or the survivor of them; 23 (6) if none of the above, to other next of kin of 24 such participant as may be determined in the judgment 25 of the Secretary to be legally entitled thereto, except Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 77 76 1 that no payment shall be made under this paragraph 2 until after the expiration of thirty days from the death 3 of the participant or annuitant. 4 (g) Annuity accrued and unpaid on the death of a survi- 5 vor annuitant shall be paid in the following order of prece- 6 dence, and the payment bars recovery by any other person: 7 first, to the duly appointed executor or administrator of the 8 estate of the survivor annuitant; second, if there is no such 9 executor or administrator, to such person as may be deter- 10 mined by the Secretary (after the expiration of thirty days 11 from the date of death of such survivor annuitant) to be enti- 12 tled under the laws of the survivor annuitant's domicile at the 13 time of death. 14 (h) Amounts deducted and withheld from basic salary of 15 a participant under section'811 from the beginning of the first 16 pay period after the participant has completed thirty-five 17 years of service computed under section 851, but excluding 18 service credit for unused sick leave under section 851(b), to- 19 gether with interest on the amounts at the rate of 3 per 20 centum a year compounded annually from the date of the ' 21 deduction to the date of retirement or death, shall be applied 22 toward any special contribution due under section 811(d), and 23 any balance not so required shall be refunded in a lump sum 24 to the participant after separation or, in the event of a death Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 78 77 1 in service, to a beneficiary in the order of precedence speci- 2 fied in subsection (f). 3 SEC. 851. CREDITABLE SERVICE.-(a) Except as oth- 4 erwise specified by law, all periods of civilian and military 5 and naval service and all other periods through the date of a 6 participant's final separation from the Service that the Secre- 7 tary determines would be creditable. toward retirement under 8 the Civil Service Retirement and Disability System (5 U.S.C. 9 8322), shall be creditable for purposes of this chapter. Con- 10 versely, any such service performed after December 31, 11 1976, that would not be creditable under specified conditions 12 under section 8332 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 13 excluded under this chapter under the same conditions. 14 (b) In computing any annuity under this chapter, the 15 total service of a participant who retires on an immediate 16 annuity or who dies leaving a survivor or survivors entitled 17 to annuity includes, without regard to the thirty-five-year 18 limitation imposed by section 821(a), the days of unused sick 19 leave to the participant's credit, except that these days will 20 not be counted in determining average basic salary or annuity 21 eligibility under this chapter. A contribution to the Fund shall 22 not be required from a participant for this service credit. 23 (c)(1) A participant who enters,on approved leave with- 24 out pay to serve as a full-time officer or employee of an orga- 25 nization composed primarily of Government employees may, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 79 78 1 within sixty days after entering on that leave without pay, 2 file with the employing agency an election to receive full + 3 retirement credit for such periods of leave without pay and 4 arrange to pay concurrently into the Fund through the em- .0 5 ploying agency, amounts equal to the retirement deductions 6 and agency contributions on the Foreign Service salary rate 7 that would be applicable if the participant were in a pay 8 status. If the election and all payments provided by this sub- 9 section are not made for the 'periods of such leave without 10 pay occurring after November 7, 1976, the participant may 11 not receive any credit for such periods of leave without pay 12 occurring after such date. 13 (2) A participant may make a special contribution for 14 any period or periods of approved leave without pay while 15 serving, before November 7, 1976, as a full-time officer or 16 employee of an organization composed primarily of Govern- 17 ment employees. Any such contribution shall be based upon 18 the suspended Foreign Service salary rate, and shall be com- 19 puted in accordance with section 811. 'A participant who 20 makes such contributions shall be allowed full retirement 21 credit for the period or periods of leave without pay. If this 22 contribution is not made, up to six-months' retirement credit ? 23 shall be allowed for such periods of leave without pay each 24 calendar year. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 79 1 (d) A participant who has received a refund of retire- 2 ment contributions (which has not been repaid) under this or 3 any other retirement system for. Government employees cov- 4 eying service which may be creditable may make a special 5 contribution for such service under section 811. Credit may 6 not be allowed for service covered by the refund unless the 7 special contribution is made. 8 (e) No credit in annuity computation shall be allowed for 9 any period of civilian service for which a participant made 10 retirement contributions to another retirement system for 11 Government employees unless- 12 (1) the right to any annuity under the other 13 system which is based on such service is waived, and 14 (2) a special contribution is made under section 15 811 covering such service. 16 (f) A participant who during a period of war, or national 17 emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by the 18 Congress, leaves the Service to enter the military service is 19 deemed, for the purpose of this chapter, as not separated 20 from the Service unless the participant applies for and re- 21 ceives a lump-sum payment under section 841. However, the 22 participant is deemed to be separated from the Service after 23 the expiration of five years of such military service. 24 (g)(1) An annuity or survivor annuity based on the serv- 25 ice of a participant of Japanese ancestry who would be eligi- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 80 1 ble under section 8332(1) of title 5, United States Code, for 2 credit for civilian service for periods of internment during 3 World War II shall, upon application to the Secretary, be 4 recomputed to give credit for that service. Any such recom- 5 putation of an annuity shall apply with respect to months 6 beginning more than thirty days after the date on which ap- 7 plication for such recomputation is received by the Secretary. 8 (2) The Secretary shall take such action as may be nec- 9 essary and appropriate to inform individuals entitled to have 10 any service credited or annuity recomputed under this sub- 11 section, of their entitlement to such credit or recomputation. 12 (3) The Secretary shall, on request, assist any individual 13 referred to in paragraph (1) in obtaining from any agency or 14 other instrumentality of the United States information neces- 15 sary to verify the entitlement of the individual to have any 16 service credited or any annuity recomputed under this sub- 17 section. 18 (4) Any agency or other instrumentality of the United 19 States shall, upon request, furnish to the Secretary any infor- 20 mation it possesses with respect to the internment or other 21 detention, as described in section 8332(1) of title 5, United 22 States Code, of any participant. 23 (h) A participant who,. while on approved leave without 24 pay, serves as a full-time paid employee of a Member or 25 office of the Congress of the United States shall continue to Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 82 81 1 make contributions to the Fund based upon the Foreign 2 Service salary rate that would be in effect if the participant 3 were in a pay status. The participant's employing office in 4 the Congress shall make a matching contribution (from the 5 appropriation or fund which is used for payment of the par- 6 ticipant's salary) to the Treasury of the United States to the 7 credit of the Fund. All periods of service for which full contri- 8 butions to the Fund are made pursuant to this subsection 9 shall be counted as creditable service for purposes of this 10 chapter and shall not, unless all retirement credit is trans- 11 ferred, be counted as-creditable service under any other Fed- 12 eral staff retirement system. 13 SEC. 853. EXTRA CREDIT FOR SERVICE AT UN- 14 HEALTHFUL POSTS.-The Secretary may from time to time 15 establish a list of places which by reason of climatic or other 16 extreme conditions are to be classed as unhealthful posts. 17 Each year of duty at such posts, inclusive of regular leaves of 18 absence, shall be counted as one year and a half in computing 19 the length of a participant's service for the purpose of retire- 20 ment, fractional months being considered as full months in 21 computing such service. No such extra credit for service at 22 such unhealthful posts shall be credited to any participant 23 who shall have been paid a differential under section 5925 of 24 title 5, United States Code, for such service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 83 82 2 . NEEDED.-The Secretary of the Treasury shall prepare the 3 estimates of the annual appropriations required to be made to 4 the Fund, and shall make actuarial valuations of such funds 5 at intervals of not more than five years. The Secretary of 6 State may expend from money to the credit of the Fund an 7 amount not exceeding $5,000 per year for the incidental ex- 8 penses necessary in administering the provisions of this chap- 9 ter, including actuarial advice. 10 SEC. 863. INVESTMENT OF FUND.-The Secretary of 11 the Treasury shall invest from time to time in interest-bear- 12 ing securities of the United States such portions of the Fund 13 as in his or her judgment may not be immediately required 14 for the payment of annuities, cash benefits, refunds, and 15 allowances. The income derived from such investments shall 16 constitute a part of the Fund. 17 SEC. 864. ATTACHMENT.OF MONEYS.-(a) An individ- 18 ual entitled to an annuity from the Fund may make allot- 19 ments or assignments of amounts from such annuity for such 20- purposes as the Secretary in his or her sole discretion consid- 21 ers appropriate. 22 - (b)(1) Payments under this chapter which would other- 23 wise be made to a participant or annuitant based upon his' or 24 her service shall be paid (in whole or in part) by the Secre- 25 tart' to another person to the extent expressly provided for in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 84 83 the terms of any court decree of divorce, annulment, or.legal separation, or the terms of any court order or court-approved property settlement agreement incident to any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation. Any payment under this paragraph to a person bars recovery by any other person. (2) Paragraph (1) shall apply only to payments made under this chapter after the date of receipt by the Secretary of written notice of such decree, order, or agreement, and such additional information and documentation as the Secre- tary may require. (3) As used in this subsection "court" means any court of any State or the District of Columbia. (c) None of the moneys mentioned in this chapter shall be assignable either in law or equity, except under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or under section 643(c), or subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, except as otherwise may be provided by Federal law. SEC. 865. PAYMENTS FOR FUTURE BENEFITS.-(a) Any statute which authorizes- (1) new or liberalized benefits payable from the Fund, including annuity increases other than under section 882; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 85 84 1 (2) extension of the benefits of the System to new 2 groups of employees; or 3 (3) increases in salary on which benefits are com- 4 puted; 5 is deemed to authorize appropriations to the Fund to finance 6 the unfunded liability created by that statute, in thirty equal 7 annual installments with interest computed at the rate used 8 in the then most recent valuation of the System and with the 9 first payment thereof due as of the end of the fiscal year in 10 which each new or liberalized benefit, extension of benefits or 11 increase in salary is effective. 12 (b) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund 13 for each fiscal year an amount equal to the amount of the 14 Foreign Service normal cost for that year which is not met 15 by contributions to the Fund under section 811(a). 16 SEC. 866. UNFUNDED LIABILITY OBLIGATIONS.-(a) 17 At the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall notify the 18 Secretary of the Treasury of the amount equivalent to- 19 (1) interest on the unfunded liability computed for 20 that year at the interest rate used in the then most 21 recent valuation of the System, and 22 (2) that portion of disbursement for annuities for 23 that year which the Secretary estimates is attributable 24 to credit allowed for military service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 86 85 1 (b) Before closing the accounts for each fiscal year, the 2 Secretary of the Treasury shall credit such amounts to the 3 Fund, as a Government contribution, out of any money in the 4 Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated. 5 (c) Requests for appropriations to the Fund under sec- 6 tion 865(b) shall include reports to the Congress on the sums 7 credited to the Fund under this section. 8 SEC. 871. ANNUITY ADJUSTMENT FOR RECALL SERV- 9. IcE.-(a) Any annuitant recalled to duty in the Service under 10 section 324 shall, while so serving, be entitled in lieu of an- 11 nuity to the full salary of the class in which serving. During 12 such service the recalled annuitant shall make contributions 13 to the Fund in accordance with section 811. On the day fol- 14 lowing -termination of the recall service, the former annuity 15 shall be resumed, adjusted by any cost-of-living increases 16 under section 882 that became effective during the recall 17 period. 18 (b) If the recall service lasts less than one year, the 19 annuitant's contributions to the Fund during recall service 20 shall be refunded in accordance with section 841. If the recall 21 service lasts more than one year, the annuitant may, in lieu 22 of such refund, elect a supplemental annuity computed under 23 section 821 on the basis of service credit and average salary 24 earned during the recall period irrespective of the number of 25 years of service credit previously earned. If the recall service Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 87 86 1 continues for at least five years, the annuitant may elect to 2 have his or her annuity determined anew under section 821 3 in lieu of any other benefits under this section. Any annuitant 4 who is recalled under section 324 may upon written applica- 5 tion count as recall service any prior service that is creditable 6 under section 851 that was performed after the separation 7 upon which his or her annuity is based. 8 SEC. 872. REEMPLOYMENT.-(a) Notwithstanding any 9 other law, any member of the Service who has retired and is 10 receiving an annuity under this chapter, and who is reem- 11 ployed in the Government service in any part-time or full- 12 time appointive position, shall be entitled to receive the 13 salary of the position in which he or she is serving plus so 14 much of the annuity payable under this chapter which when 15 combined with such salary does not exceed during any calen- 16 dar year the basic.salary the member was entitled to receive 17 under this Act on the date of retirement from the Service. 18 Any such reemployed member of the Service who receives 19 salary during any calendar year in excess of the maximum 20 amount which he or she may be entitled to receive under this 21 subsection shall be entitled to such salary in lieu of benefits 22 under this chapter. 23 (b) When any such retired member of the Service is 24 reemployed, the employer shall send a notice to the Depart- 25 ment of such reemployment, together with all pertinent infor- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 87 1 mation relating thereto, and shall pay directly to such 2 member the salary of the position in which he or she is 3 serving. 4 (c) In the event of any overpayment under this section, 5 such overpayment shall be recovered by withholding the 6 amount involved from the salary payable to such reemployed 7 member of the Service or from any other moneys, including annuity payments, payable under this chapter. SEC. 881. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS.-(a) The vol- untary contribution account shall be the sum of unrefunded amounts heretofore voluntarily contributed by any participant or former participant under any prior law authorizing such contributions to the Fund, plus interest compounded at the rate of 3 per centum per year to date of separation from the Service or in case of a participant or former participant sepa- rated with entitlement to a deferred annuity to the date the voluntary contribution account in claimed, or to the com- mencing date fixed for the deferred annuity or to the date of death, whichever is earlier. Effective on the date the partici- pant becomes eligible for an annuity or a deferred annuity 21 and at the participant's election, his or her account shall 22 be- 23 (1) returned in a lump sum; or 24 (2) used to purchase an additional life annuity; or Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 89 88 1 (3) used to purchase an additional life annuity for 2 the participant and to provide for a cash payment on 3 his or her death to a beneficiary whose name shall be 4 notified in writing to the Secretary by the participant; 5 or 6 (4) used to purchase an additional life annuity for 7 the participant and a life annuity commencing on his or 8 her death payable to a beneficiary whose name shall be '9 notified in writing to the Secretary by the participant i10 with a guaranteed return to the beneficiary or his or 11 her legal representative of an amount equal to the cash 12 payment referred to in paragraph (3). 13 (b) The benefits provided by subsection (a) (2), (3), or (4) 14 shall be actuarially equivalent in value to the payment pro- 15 vided for by subsection (a)(1) and shall be calculated upon 16 such tables of mortality as may be from time to time 17 prescribed for this purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury. 18 (c) A voluntary contribution account shall be paid in a 19 lump sum following receipt of an application therefor from a 20 present or former participant if application is filed prior to 21 payment of any additional annuity. If not sooner paid, the 22 account shall be paid at such time as the participant sepa- 23 rates from the Service for any reason without entitlement to 24 an annuity or a deferred annuity, or at such time as a former 25 participant dies or withdraws complusory contributions to the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 90 89 1 Fund. In case of death, the account shall be paid in the order 2 of precedence specified in section 841(g). 3 SEC. 882. COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS OF ANNU- 4 ITIES.-(a) A cost-of-living annuity increase shall become 5 effective under this section on the effective date of each such 6 increase under section 8340(b) of title 5, United States Code. 7 Each such increase shall be applied to each annuity payable 8 from the Fund which has a commencing date not later than 9 the effective date of the increase. 10 (b) Each annuity increase under this section shall be 11 identical to the corresponding percentage increase under 12 section 8340(b) of title 5, United States Code. 13 (c) Eligibility for an annuity increase under this section 14 shall be governed by the commencing date of each annuity 15 payable from the Fund as of the effective date of an increase 16 except as follows: 17 (1) An annuity (except a deferred annuity) payable 18 from the Fund to a participant who retires and re- 19 ceives an immediate annuity, or to a surviving spouse 20 of a deceased participant who dies in Service or who 21 dies after being separated with benefits under section 22 643(b)(2), which has a commencing date after the 23 effective date of the then last preceding general annu- 24 ity increase under this section shall not be less than 25 the annuity which would have been payable if the com- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 91 90 1 mencing date of such annuity had been the effective .2 date of such last preceding increase. In the administra- 3 tion of this paragraph, the number of days of unused 4 sick leave to a participant's or deceased participant's 5 credit on the effective date of the then last preceding 6 general annuity increase under this section shall be 7 deemed to be equal to the number of days of unused 8 sick leave to his or her credit on the day of separation 9 from the Service. 10 (2) Effective from its commencing date, an annu- 11 ity payable from the Fund to an annuitant's survivor, 12 except a child entitled under section 821(c) or 832 (c) 13 or (d), shall be increased by the total percentage in- 14 crease the annuitant was receiving under this section 15 at death. 16 (3) For purposes of computing or recomputing an 17 annuity to a child under section 821 (c) or (d) or 832 18 (c) or (d), the items $900, $1,080, $2,700, and $3,240 19 appearing in section 821(c) shall be increased by the 20 total percentage increases by which corresponding 21 amounts are being increased under section 8340 of title 22 5, United States Code, on the date the child's annuity 23 becomes effective. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 92 91 10 11 12 1 (d) No increase in annuity provided by this section shall 2 be computed on any additional annuity purchased at retire- 3 ment by voluntary contributions. " 4 (e) The monthly installment of annuity after adjustment 5 under this section shall be fixed at the nearest dollar, except 6 such installment shall after adjustment reflect an increase of 7 at least $1. 8 (f) Effective from its commencing date, there shall be an 9 increase of 10 per centum in the annuity of each surviving spouse whose entitlement to annuity resulted from the death 13 annuity. 14 CHAPTER 9-TRAVEL, LEAVE, AND OTHER BENEFITS 15 SEC. 901. TRAVEL AND RELATED EXPENSES.-The 16 Secretary may pay the travel and related expenses of mem- 17 bers of the Service and their families, including costs or ex- 18 penses incurred for- 19 (1) proceeding to and returning from assigned 20 posts of duty; 21 (2) authorized home leave; 22 (3) family members to accompany, precede, or 23 follow a member of the Service to a place of temporary 24 duty while a member or family member is en route to 25 or from a post of assignment; of an annuitant who, prior to October 1, 1976, elected a reduced annuity in order to provide a spouse's survivor Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 93 92 1 (4) representational travel within a member's 2 country of assignment or, when not more than one 3 family member participates, outside the country of 4 assignment; 5 (5) obtaining necessary medical care for an illness, 6 injury, or medical condition while abroad in a locality 7 where there is no suitable person or facility to provide 8 such care, without regard to those laws and regula- 9 tions limiting or restricting the furnishing or payment 10 of transportation and traveling expenses, including 11 expenses for- 12 (A) an attendant or attendants for a member 13 or family member who is too ill to travel unat- 14 tended or is a family member too young to travel 15 alone, and 16 (B) a family member incapable of caring for 17 himself or herself if he or she remained at post; 18 (6) rest and recuperation travel of United States 19 citizen members of the Service, and members of their 20 families, while serving at posts specifically designated 21 by the Secretary for purposes of this paragraph, to- 22 (A) other locations abroad having different 23 social, climatic, or other environmental conditions 24 than those at the post at which such personnel 25 are serving, or Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 93 1 (B) to locations in the United States: 2 Provided, That unless the Secretary otherwise specifies 3 in extraordinary circumstances such travel expenses 4 shall be limited to the cost for a member of the Service 5 and the member's family of one round trip during any 6 continuous two-year tour unbroken by home leave, and 7 two round trips during any continuous three-year tour 8 unbroken by home leave; 9 (7) removal of the members of the family of a 10 member of the Service, and the member's furniture and 11 household and personal effects (including automobiles), 12 from a post where there is imminent danger because of 13 the prevalence of disturbed conditions, and the return 14 of such persons, furniture, and effects to such post 15 upon the cessation of such conditions, or to such other 16 post as may in the meantime have become the post to 17 which the member of the Service has been reassigned; 18 (8) up to two round trips each year by members 19 of the Service for purposes of family visitation in situa- 20 tions where the member's family is prevented by offi- 21 cial order from accompanying the member to, or has 22 been ordered from, the member's assigned post because 23 of imminent danger due to the prevalence of disturbed 24 conditions, except that, with respect to any such 25 member whose family is located abroad, the Secretary Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 95 94 the place where the member will reside; (12) packing and unpacking, transporting may authorize such additional trips, as deemed appro- priate, not to exceed the equivalent, cost of two round trips of less than first class to the District of Columbia; (9) round-trip travel from a post abroad for pur- poses of family visitation in emergency situations in- volving personal hardship; (10) preparing and transporting to their designat- ed homes in the United States or to a place not more distant, the remains of members of the Service and of the members of their families who may die abroad or while in travel status; (11) transporting the furniture and household and personal effects of a member of the Service to succes- sive posts of duty and, on the termination of service, to from a place of storage, and storing the.furniture and household and personal effects of a member of the Service- (A) when absent from post of assignment under orders, or when,assigned to a post to which the member cannot take or at which the member is unable to use such furniture and household and personal effects, or when it is in the public inter- est or more economical to authorize storage; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 96 95 1 (B) in connection with assignment or transfer 2 to a new post, from the date of departure from his 3 or her last post or from the date of departure from the member's place of residence in the case of a new member and for not to exceed three months after arrival at the new post, or until the (C) in connection with separation of a member of the Service, the cost of packing and unpacking, transporting to and from a place of storage, and storing for a period not to exceed three months of the member's furniture and household and personal effects; (13) transporting, notwithstanding any other law, for or on behalf of a member of the Service, a privately owned. motor vehicle in any case in which the Secre- tary determines that water, rail, or air transportation of the motor vehicle is necessary or expedient for all or any part of the distance between points of origin and destination: Provided, That not more than one motor establishment of residence shall be shorter; and vehicle of any such member may be transported under authority of this paragraph during any four-year period, while the member is continuously serving Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 97 96 1 abroad, except as a replacement for such motor 2 vehicle- 3 (A) determined, in advance, by the Secretary 4 to be necessary for reasons beyond the control of 5 the member and in the interest of the Govern- 6 ment, or 7 (B) incident to a transfer when the cost of 8 transporting the replacement motor vehicle does 9 not exceed the cost of transporting the motor 10 vehicle that is replaced; 11 (14) the travel and relocation of members of the 12 Service, and members of their families, assigned within 13 the United States, including assignments under sec- 14 tions 3371-3376 of title 5, United States Code (not- 15 withstanding section 3375(a) of title 5, United States 16 Code), if an agreement similar to that required by sec- 17 tion 3375(b) of title 5, United States Code, is executed 18 by the member of the Service. 19 SEC. 902. LOAN OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.-The Sec- 20 retary may, as a means of eliminating transportation costs, 21 provide members of the Service with basic household furnish- 22 ing and equipment for use on a loan basis in personally 23 owned or leased residences. 24 SEC. 911. REQUIRED LEAVE IN THE UNITED 25 STATES.-(a) The Secretary may order to the United States Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 98. 97 1 on statutory leave of absence any member of the Service who 2 is a citizen of the United States upon completion of eighteen 3 months' continuous service abroad and shall so order as soon 4 as possible after completion of three years of such service. 5 (b) While in the United States for leave of absence, the 6 service of any member shall be available for such work or 7 duties in the Department or elsewhere as the Secretary may 8 prescribe, but the time of such work or duties will not be 9 counted as leave. 10 SEC. 921. HEALTH CARE.-(a) The Secretary may 11 establish a health care program to promote and maintain the 12' physical and mental health of members of the Service, and 13 (when incident to overseas service) designated eligible per- 14 sonnel of the Department and other agencies, and members 15 of their families. 16 (b) Any such health care program may include medical 17 examinations for applicants for employment and for personnel 18 of the Department or the Service who are citizens of the. 19 United States, and for members of their families; examina- 20 tions necessary to establish disability or incapacity of partici- 21 pants in the Foreign Service 'Retirement and Disability 22 System; and inoculations or vaccinations for such personnel 23 and the members of their families. 24 (c) The Secretary may establish health care facilities 25 and provide for the services of physicians, nurses, or other Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 99 98 1 health care personnel at posts abroad at which, in the opinion 2 of the Secretary, sufficient personnel are employed to 3 warrant such facilities or services. 4 (d) In the event any person eligible for health care under 5 this section incurs an illness, injury, or medical condition 6 while abroad which requires hospitalization or similar treat- 7 ment, the Secretary may pay all or part of the cost of such 8 treatment. Limitations on such payments established by reg- 9 ulation may be waived whenever the Secretary determines 10 that the illness, injury, or-medical condition clearly was 11 caused or materially aggravated by the fact that the person 12 concerned is or has been located abroad. 13 (e) The Secretary is authorized to provide health care 14 under this section beyond the date of separation of any eligi- 15 ble personnel, and to their families beyond the date of death 16 of such personnel or dissolution of marriage. 17 (f) The Secretary shall review on a continuing basis the 18 health care program provided for in,this section. Whenever 19 the Secretary determines that all or any part of such program 20 can be provided for as well and as cheaply in other ways, the 21 Secretary is authorized for such persons, locations, and con- 22 ditions as may be deemed appropriate, to contract for health 23 care pursuant to such arrangements as may be deemed 24 appropriate. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 100 99 1 SEC. 931. REPRESENTATION.-Notwithstanding the 2 provisions of section 5536 of title 5, United States Code, the 3 Secretary is authorized to provide for official receptions and 4 entertainment and representational expenses to enable the 5 Department and the Service to provide for the proper repre- 6 sentation of the United States and its interests. 7 CHAPTER 10-LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 8 SEC. 1001. LABOR-MANAGEMENT POLICY.-The Con- 9 gress finds- 10 (1) that experience in both private and public em- 11. ployment indicates that the statutory protection of the 12 right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, 13 and participate through labor organizations of their 14 own choosing in decisions which affect them- 15 (A) safeguards the public interest, 16 (B) contributes to the effective conduct of 17 public business, and 18 (C) facilitates and encourages the amicable 19 settlement of disputes between employees and 20 their employers involving conditions of employ- 21 ment; 22 (2) that the public interest demands the highest 23 standards of performance by members of the Service 24 and the continuous development and implementation of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 101 100 ter, the term- (1) "Board" modern and progressive work practices to facilitate their improved performance and efficiency; and (3) that the unique conditions of Foreign Service employment require a distinct framework for the devel- opment and implementation of modern, constructive, and cooperative relationships between management of- ficials and organizations representing members of the Service. Therefore, labor organizations and collective bargaining in the Service are in the public interest and are consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government. The provisions of this chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the re- quirement of an effective and efficient Government. SEc. 1002. DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this chap- means the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board, established by section 1011; (2) "collective bargaining" means the performance of the mutual obligation of the management repre- sentative of the Department and of the exclusive repre- sentatives of employees to meet at reasonable times and to consult and bargain in a good-faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the conditions of em- ployment affecting employees, and to execute, if requested by either party,. a written document incorpo- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 102 101 rating any collective-bargaining agreement reached, but this obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or to make a concession; (3) "collective-bargaining agreement" means a signed agreement (which may be of a comprehensive and long-term nature) entered into as a result of collec- tive bargaining under this chapter; (4) "conditions of employment" means personnel policies, practices, and matters within the discretion of the Secretary affecting working conditions (established by rule, regulation, or otherwise), except that such term does not include policies, practices, or matters- (A) relating to the designation or classifica- tion of any position, (B) relating to prohibited political activities, (C) specifically provided for by Federal statute, (D) relating to Government-wide or multi- agency responsibilities of the Secretary affecting agencies other than those to which this chapter applies; (5) "confidential employee" means an individual who assists, or otherwise acts in a confidential capacity to, a management official (except an individual who as- sists in a purely clerical capacity a management official Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 103 102 sentative of employees; (9) "labor organization" means an who is not engaged in the administration of this chap- ter or in the formulation of the personnel policies and programs of the Department); (6) "dues" means dues, fees, and assessments; (7) "employee" means- . (A) a member of the Service who is a citizen of the United States, wherever serving, other than a management official, a confidential em- ployee, a consular agent or any person who par- ticipates in a strike in violation of section 7311 of title 5, United States Code; or (B) a former member of the Service as de- scribed in subparagraph (A) whose employment has ceased because of an unfair labor practice under section 1031 and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employ- ment, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Board; (8) "exclusive representative" means any labor organization which is certified as the exclusive repre- organization composed in whole or in part of employees, in which employees participate and pay dues, and which has as a primary purpose dealing with the Department con- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 104 103 conditions; (B) an organization which advocates cerning grievances and conditions, of employment, but does not include- (A) an organization which by its constitution, bylaws, or tacit agreement among its members, or otherwise, denies membership because of race, color, creed, national orgin, sex, age, political af- filiation, marital status, or handicapping overthrow of the constitutional form of govern- ment of the United States; (C) an organization sponsored by the Depart- ment or composed solely of management officials; (D) an organization which participates in the conduct of a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown, or which imposes a duty or obligation to conduct, assist, or participate in such an action; (10) "management official" means an individual who- (A) is a chief of mission or principal officer; (B) is serving in a position to which appoint- ed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the President alone; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 104 1 (C) occupies a position which in the sole 2 judgment of the Secretary is of comparable impor- 3 tance to the offices mentioned in paragraph (A) or 4 (B), above; 5 (D) is serving as a deputy to any of the 6 above; 7 (E) is assigned as a Foreign Service 8 inspector; or 9 (F) is engaged in the administration of this 10 chapter or in the formulation of the personnel 11 policies and programs of the Department; 12 (11) "Panel" means the Foreign Service Impasse 13 Disputes Panel, established by section 1014; 14 (12) "person" means an. individual, a labor orga- 15 nization, or an agency. 16 SEC. 1003. APPLICATION.-(a) The President may by 17 Executive order exclude any subdivision of the Department 18 from coverage under this chapter if the President determines 19 that- 20 (1) the subdivision has as a primary function intel- 21 ligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national 22 security work, and 23 (2) the provisions of this chapter cannot be ap- 24 plied to that subdivision in a manner consistent with 25 national security requirements and considerations. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 106 105 1 (b) The Secretary may suspend temporarily any provi- 2 sion of this chapter with respect to any post, bureau, office, 3 or activity, in the United States or abroad, when the Secre- 4 tary determines in writing in emergency situations that such 5 a temporary suspension is necessary in the national interest. 6 SEC. 1004. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS.-(a) Every employee 7 has the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, 8 or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of 9 penalty or reprisal. Each employee shall be protected in the 10 exercise of such right. 11 (b) Except as otherwise provided under this chapter, 12 such right includes the right- 13 (1) to act for a labor organization in the capacity 14 of a representative and, in that capacity, to represent 15 the views of the labor organization to the Secretary 16 and other officials of the Government, including the 17 Congress, or other appropriate authorities; and 18 (2) to engage in collective bargaining with respect 19 to conditions of employment through representatives 20 chosen by members of the Service under this chapter. 21 SEC. 1005. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.-(a) Nothing in 22 this chapter shall affect the authority of the Department, in 23 accordance with applicable law and'regulations- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 107 106 1 (1) to determine the mission, budget, organization, 2 and number of types and classes of employees and in- 3 ternal security practices of the Department; 4 (2) to hire, promote, assign, direct, lay off and 5 retain employees, or to suspend or remove, or to take 6 other disciplinary action against such employees; 7 (3) to assign work, to make determinations with 8 respect to contracting out, and to determine the per- 9 sonnel by which the Department's operations shall be 10 conducted; 11 (4) to fill positions from any appropriate source; 12 (5) to determine the need for uniform personnel 13 policies and procedures between or among the agencies 14 to which this chapter applies; 15 (6) to take whatever actions may be necessary to 16 carry out the Department's mission during emergen- 17 cies. 18 (b) Subsection (a) shall not preclude the Department and 19 the exclusive representative from negotiating- 20 (1) at the election of the Department, on the num- 21 bers, types, and classes of employees or positions as- 22 signed to any organizational subdivision, work project, 23 or tour of duty, or on the technology, methods, and 24 means of performing work; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 108 107 1 (2) procedures which management officials of the 2 Department will observe in exercising their functions; 4 (3) appropriate arrangements for employees ad- 5 versely affected by the exercise of any function under 6 this section. 7 SEC. 1011. FOREIGN SERVICE LABOR RELATIONS 8 BOARD.-(a) There is established the Foreign Service Labor 9 Relations Board. The Board shall be composed of three 10 members, one of whom shall be the Chairman of the Federal 11 Labor Relations Authority, who shall chair. The remaining 12 two members shall be appointed by the Secretary from nomi- 13 nees approved in writing by the agencies to which this chap- 14 ter applies, and the exclusive representative (if any) of 15 employees in each such agency. In the event of inability to 16 obtain agreement on a nominee, each agency and each exclu- 17 sive representative whose agreement is required shall select 18 two nominees and each such agency and exclusive repre- 19 sentative, in an order determined by lot, shall in turn strike a 20 name from a list of such nominees 'until only one remains. 21 (b) The Chairperson shall serve on the Board while 22 serving as Chairman of the Federal Labor Relations Authori- 23 ty. One of the two original members of the Board other than 24 the Chairperson shall be appointed for a two-year term, and 25 one for a three-year term. Thereafter, each member other Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 109 108 1 than the Chairperson shall be appointed for a period of three 2 years. An individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appoint- 3 ed for the unexpired term of the member replaced. 4 (c) A vacancy on the Board shall not impair the right of 5 the remaining members to exercise the full powers of the 6 Board. The Chairperson may at any time designate an alter- 7 pate Chairperson from among the members of the Federal 8 Labor Relations Authority. 9 (d) The members, other than the Chairperson, may not 10 be employees of the Government, and shall receive compen- 11 sation at the daily rate paid an individual at level V of the 12 Federal Executive Salary Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5316) for each 13 day they are performing their duties (including traveltime). 14 (e) The Secretary may remove a Board member, other 15 than the Chairperson, upon written notice, for corruption, ne- 16 glect of duty, malfeasance, or demonstrated incapacity to 17 perform his or her functions, established at a hearing, except 18 where the right to a hearing is waived in writing. 19 (f) The Board may obtain facilities, services, and sup- 20 plies through the general administrative services of the De- 21 partment. All expenses of the Board, including travel and 22 travel-related expenses, shall be paid out of funds appropri- 23 ated to the Department for obligation and expenditure by the 24 Board. At the request of the Board, officers and employees of 25 the Department and members of the Service may be assigned Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 110 109 1 as staff employees for the Board. Within the limits of appro- 2 priated funds, the Board may appoint and fix the compensa- 3 tion of such other employees as the Board considers neces- 4 sary to carry out its functions. 5 SEC. 1012. FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD.-(a) The 6 Board shall- 7 (1) supervise or conduct elections and determine 8 whether a labor organization has been selected as the 9 exclusive representative by a majority of employees 10 who cast valid ballots and administer the provisions of 11 this chapter relating to the according of exclusive rec- 12 ognition to a labor organization; 13 (2) resolve complaints of alleged unfair labor 14 practices; 15 (3) resolve issues relating to the obligation to 16 bargain in good faith; and 17 (4) take any action -considered necessary to 18 administer effectively the provisions of this chapter. 19 (b) In the exercise of its responsibilities, the Board shall 20 give such consideration as it deems appropriate to the deci- 21 sions of the Federal Labor Relations Authority under section 22 7105 of title 5, United States Code. 23 (c) In order to carry out its functions under this chapter, 24 the Board may- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 111 110 1 (1) adopt regulations concerning its organization, 2 procedures, and functions under this chapter; 0 3 (2) conduct appropriate inquiries wherever persons 4 subject to this chapter are located; 5 (3) hold hearings; 6 (4) administer oaths, take the testimony or deposi- 7 tion of any person under oath, and issue subpenas; and 8 (5) require the Department or a labor organization to cease and desist from violations of this chapter and require it to take any remedial action it considers ap- propriate to carry out this chapter. (d) Except as provided in section 518 of title 28, United States Code, attorneys designated by the Board may appear 14 for the Board and represent the Board in connection with any .15 function carried out by the Board under this chapter or as 16 otherwise authorized by law. 17 (e) The Board shall maintain a file on its proceedings 18 and copies of all available agreements, and shall publish the 19 texts of its decisions and the actions taken by the Panel 20 under section 1014. 21 SEC. 1013. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF 22 BOARD ACTIONS.-(a) Except as provided in section 23 1024(d), any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board 24 may, during the sixty-day period beginning on the date on 25 which the order was issued, institute an action for judicial Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 112 111 1 review of the Board's order in the United States Court of 2 Appeals for the District of Columbia, which shall conduct its 3 review on the same basis as an appeal from a decision of a r 4 district court. 5 (b) The Board may petition the United States Court of 6 Appeals for the District of Columbia for the enforcement of 7 any order of the Board and for appropriate temporary relief 8 or restraining order. 9 (c) Subsection (c) of section 7123 of title 5, United 10 States Code, shall apply to judicial review and enforcement 11 of actions by the Board in the same manner that it applies to 12 such review and enforcement of actions by the Federal Labor 13 Relations Authority. 14 SEC. 1014. FOREIGN SERVICE IMPASSE DISPUTES 15 PANEL.-(a) The Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel 16 shall assist in resolving negotiating impasses arising in the 17 course of collective bargaining under this chapter. The Chair- 18 person of the Board shall designate the members of the 19 Panel, who shall include two members of the Foreign Service 20 (neither of whom shall be a management official, a confiden- 21 tial employee, or a labor organization official); one repre- 22 sentative of the Department of Labor; one member of the 23 Federal Service Impasse Panel; and one public member who 24 is not an employee of the Government. The Chairperson of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 113 112 1 the Board shall set the terms of office for Panel members and 2 determine who shall chair the Panel. 3 (b) Panel members who are not employees of the Gov- 4 ernment shall receive compensation for each day they are 5 performing their duties (including traveltime) at the daily rate 6 paid an individual at grade 18 of the General Schedule 7 described in section 5104 of title 5, United States Code. 8 (c) Upon the request of either the Department or an 9 exclusive representative, the Panel shall promptly consider a 10 negotiation impasse, and shall assist the parties in resolving 11 the impasse through mediation. 12 (d) If the parties do not arrive at an agreement after 13 assistance by the Panel under subsection (c), the Panel 14 may- 15 (1) hold hearings (in the course of which it may 16 administer oaths, and take the testimony or deposition 17 of any person under oath); and 18 (2) take whatever action is necessary to resolve 19 the impasse. 20 (e) Notice of any. final action of the Panel under this 21 section shall be served promptly upon the parties, and shall 22 be binding during the term of the agreement, unless the par- 23 ties agree otherwise, or the Secretary finds that the Panel's 24 action is contrary to the best interests of the Service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 114 113 1 SEC. 1021. EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION.-(a) The De- 2 partment shall accord exclusive recognition to a labor organi- 3 zation if the organization has been selected in a secret ballot 4 election by a majority of the employees who cast valid 5 ballots. 6 (b) If a petition is filed with the Board by a person- 7 (1) alleging (with the support of 30 per centum of 8 the employees in the unit)- 9 (A) that the employees are not represented 10 and wish to be represented for the purpose of col- 11 lective bargaining by an exclusive representative, 12 or 13 (B) that the exclusive representative is no 14 longer the representative desired by the majority 15 of the employees; or 16 (2) seeking clarification of,, or an amendment to, a 17 certification then in effect or a matter relating to 18 representation; 19 then the Board shall review the petition, and if there is rea- 20 sonable cause to believe that a question of representation 21 exists, the Board shall provide an opportunity for a hearing 22 after reasonable notice. If the Board finds that a question of 23 representation exists, the Board shall supervise an election 24 on the question by secret ballot and shall certify the results 25 thereof. An election under this subsection shall not be con- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 115 114 1 ducted if, in the preceding twelve calendar months, a valid 2 election has been held. 3 .(c) A labor organization which- 4 (1) has been designated by at least 10 per centum 5 of the employees; or 6 (2) is the exclusive representative of. the 7 employees involved; 8 may intervene with respect to a petition filed under subsec- 9 tion (b) and shall be placed on the ballot of any election under 10 subsection (b) with respect to the petition. 11 (d)(1) The Board shall determine who is eligible to vote 12 in any election under this section and shall establish rules 13 governing such election, which shall include rules allowing 14 employees who are eligible to vote the opportunity to 15 choose- 16 (A) from any labor organizations on the ballot, 17 that labor organization which the employees wish to 18 represent them; or 19 (B) not to be represented by a labor organization. 20 (2) In any election in which more than two choices are 21 on the ballot, the Board's rules shall provide for preferential 22 voting. If no choice receives a majority of first preferences, 23 the Board shall distribute to the two choices having the most 24 first preferences the preferences as between those two of the 25 other valid ballots cast. The choice receiving a majority of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 116 115 1 preferences shall be declared the winner. A labor organiza- 2 tion which is declared the winner of the election shall be 3 certified by the Board as the exclusive representative. 4 (e) A labor organization seeking exclusive recognition 5 shall submit to the Board and to the Department a roster of 6. its officers and representatives, a copy of its constitution and 7 bylaws and a statement of its objectives. 8 (f) Exclusive recognition shall not be accorded to a labor 9 organization- 10 (1) if the Board determines that the labor organi- 11 zation is subject to corrupt influence or influences 12 opposed to democratic principles; 13 (2) in the case of a petition filed under subsection 14 (b)(1)(A), if there is not credible evidence that at least 15 30 per centum of the employees wish to be represented 16 for the purpose of collective bargaining by the labor 17 organization seeking exclusive recognition; or 18 (3) if a petition is filed within two years of the 19 date a labor organization has been certified as the ex- 20 elusive representative. 21 (g) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the waiver of 22 hearings by stipulation for the purpose of a consent election 23 in conformity with regulations or decisions of the Board. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 117 116 1 SEC. 1022. EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED.-The De- 2 partment shall constitute a single and separate worldwide 3 bargaining unit, from which there shall be excluded- 4 (1) management officials and confidential em- 5 ployees; 6 (2) employees engaged in personnel work in other 7 than a purely clerical capacity; and 8 (3) employees engaged in criminal or national se- 9 curity investigations or who audit the work of individ- 10 uals to. insure that their functions are discharged 11 honestly and with integrity. 12 SEC. 1023. REPRESENTATION RIGHTS. AND 13 DUTIES.-(a) A labor organization which has been accorded 14 exclusive recognition is the exclusive representative of, and is 15 entitled to act for, and negotiate collective-bargaining agree- 16 ments covering, all employees in the unit described in section 17 1022. An exclusive representative is responsible for repre- 18 senting the interests of all employees in that unit without 19 discrimination and without regard to labor organization mem- 20 bership. 21 (b)(1) An exclusive representative shall be given the 22 opportunity to be represented at- 23 (A) any formal discussion between one or more 24 representatives of the Department and one or more 25 employees in the unit (or their representatives), con- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 118 117 1 cerning general conditions of employment, including 2 general personnel policies and practices, unless, the 3 specific application of those conditions to the particular 4 employees is the sole issue; 5 (B) any examination of an employee by a Depart- 6 ment representative for purposes of an investigation 7 if- 8 (i) the employee reasonably believes that the 9 examination may result ,in. disciplinary action 10 against the employee, and 11 (ii) the employee requests such representa- 12 tion. 13 (2) The Department shall annually inform employees of 14 their rights under paragraph (1)(B). 15 (c) The rights of an exclusive representative under this 16 section shall not preclude an employee from- 17 (1) being represented by an attorney or other rep- 18 resentative of the employee's own choosing, other than 19 the exclusive representative, in any separation for 20 cause or appeal proceeding; or 21 (2) exercising grievance or appeal rights estab- 22 lished by law, rule, or regulation. 23 (d) The duty of the Department and the exclusive repre- 24 sentative to negotiate in good faith shall include the 25 obligation- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 118 1 (1) to approach the negotiations with a sincere 2 resolve to reach a collective-bargaining agreement; 3 (2) to be represented at the negotiations by duly 4 authorized representatives prepared to discuss and 5 negotiate on appropriate conditions of employment; 6 - (3) to meet at reasonable times and convenient 7 places as frequently as may be necessary and to avoid 8 unnecessary delays; 9 (4) for the Department to furnish the exclusive 10 representative, upon request, and to the extent not 11 prohibited by law, data (other than information which 12 constitutes guidance, advice, counsel, or training pro- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 vided for management officials or confidential employees)- (A) which is normally maintained by the De- partment in the regular course of business, and (B) which is reasonably available and neces- sary for full and proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation. of subjects within' the scope of bargaining; (5) to negotiate jointly with respect to conditions of employment applicable to employees in more than one of the agencies to which this chapter applies, as determined by such agencies; and Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 120 119 1 (6) if agreement is reached, to execute, upon the 2 request of either party to the negotiation, a written 3 document embodying the agreed terms, and to take the 4 steps necessary to implement the agreement. 5 (e)(1) An agreement between the Department and the 6 exclusive representative shall be subject to approval by the 7 Secretary. 8 (2) The Secretary shall approve the agreement within 9 thirty days after it is executed unless the Secretary finds that 10 the agreement is inconsistent with an applicable, law, order, 11 or regulation, or the requirements of national security or for- 12 eign policy. 13 (3) Unless the Secretary disapproves the agreement by 14 making a finding under paragraph (2), the agreement shall 15 take effect after thirty days from its execution and shall be 16 binding on the Department and the exclusive representative 17 subject to all applicable laws, orders, and regulations. 18 (f) The Department shall consult with the exclusive rep- 19 resentative with respect to multiagency or interagency mat- 20 ters affecting the rights, benefits, or obligations of employees 21 which are not subject to collective bargaining solely because 22 of section 1002(4)(D). 23 SEC. 1024. RESOLUTION OF.. IMPLEMENTATION Dis- 24 PUTES.-(a) Any dispute between the Department and the 25 exclusive representative concerning the effect, interpretation, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 121 120 1 or a claim of breach of a collective-bargaining agreement 2 shall be resolved through procedures negotiated by the De- 3 partment and the exclusive representative. Any procedures 4 negotiated under this section shall- 5 (1) be fair and simple, 6 (2) provide for expeditious processing, and 7 . (3) include provision for appeal to the Foreign 8 Service Grievance Board by either party of any dispute 9 not satisfactorily settled. 10 (b) Either party to an appeal under subsection (a)(3) 11 may file with the Board an exception to the action of the 12 Foreign Service Grievance Board to resolve the implementa- 13 tion dispute. If, upon review, the Board finds that the action 14 is deficient- 15' (1) because it is contrary to any law, rule, or reg- 16 ulation; or 17 (2) on other grounds similar to those applied by 18 the Federal Labor Relations Authority under section 19 7122 of title 5, United States Code; 20 the Board may take such action and make such recommenda- 21 tions concerning the Grievance Board action as it considers 22 necessary, consistent with applicable laws, rules, and regula- 23 tions. 24 (c) If no exception to a Grievance Board action is filed 25 under subsection (b) within thirty days after such action is Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 121 1 communicated to the parties, such action shall become final 2 and binding and shall be implemented by the parties. 3 (d) ,Resolutions of disputes under this section shall not 4 be subject to judicial review. 5 SEC. 1031. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.-(a) It shall 6 be an unfair labor practice for the Department- 7 . (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any em- 8 ployee in the exercise by. the employee of any right 9 under this chapter; 10 (2) to encourage or discourage membership in any 11 labor organization by discrimination in connection with 12. hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of em- 13 ployment; 14 (3) to sponsor, control, or otherwise assist any 15 labor organization, other than to furnish upon request 16 customary and routine services and facilities on an im- 17 partial basis to labor organizations having equivalent 18 status; 19 (4) to discipline or otherwise discriminate against 20 an employee because the employee has filed a 21 complaint or petition, or has given any information, 22 affidavit, or testimony under this chapter; 23 (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith 24 with a labor organization, as required under this 25 chapter; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 123 122 1 (6) to fail or refuse to cooperate in impasse proce- 2 dures and impasse decisions, as required under this 3 chapter; 4 (7) to enforce any rule or regulation which is in an employee; (4) to discriminate against conflict with an applicable collective-bargaining agree- ment if the agreement was in effect before the date the rule or regulation was prescribed; or (8) to fail or refuse otherwise to comply with any provision of this chapter. (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any em- ployee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter; (2) to cause or attempt to cause, the Department to discriminate against any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter; (3) to coerce, discipline, fine, or attempt to coerce a member of the labor organization as punishment or reprisal, or for the purpose of hindering or impeding the member's work performance or productivity as an employee or the discharge of the member's functions as an employee with regard to the terms and conditions of membership in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 123 the labor organization on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, preferential or Service status, political affiliation, marital status, or handicap- ping condition; (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with the Department, as required under this chapter; (6) to fail or refuse to cooperate in impasse proce- dures and impasse decisions, as required under this chapter; (7)(A) to call, or participate in, a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown, or to picket the Department's operations, but informational picketing in the United States which does not interfere with such operations shall not be considered an unfair labor practice; (B) to condone any activity described in subpara- graph (A) by failing to take action to prevent or stop such activity; (8) to deny membership to any employee in the unit represented by the exclusive representative except- (A) for failure to tender dues uniformly re- quired as a condition of acquiring and retaining membership, or Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 125 124 1 (B) in the exercise of disciplinary procedures 2 consistent with the organization's constitution or 3 bylaws and this chapter; or 4 (9) to fail or refuse otherwise to comply with any 5 provision of this chapter. 6 (c) The expression of any personal view, argument, or 7 opinion, or the making of any statement, which- 8 (1) publicizes the fact of a representational elec- 9 tion and encourages employees to exercise their right 10 to vote in such an election; 11 (2) corrects the record with respect to any false or 12 misleading statement made by any person; or 13 (3) informs employees of the Government's policy 14 relating to labor-management relations and repre- 15 sentation, 16 if the expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or 17 promise of benefit and was not made under coercive condi- 18 tions shall not- 19 (A) constitute an unfair labor practice under this 20 chapter, or 21 (B) constitute grounds for the setting aside of any 22 election conducted under this chapter. 23 (d) Issues which can properly be raised under an appeals 24 procedure may not be raised as unfair labor practices prohib- 25 ited under this section. Except for matters wherein, under Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 126 125 1 section 1131(b), an employee has an option of using the 2 grievance procedure under chapter 11 or an appeals proce- 3 dare, issues which can be raised under section 1024 or chap- 4 ter 11 may, in the discretion of the aggrieved party, be raised 5 either under such section or chapter or else raised as an 6 unfair labor practice under this section, but may not be raised 7 both under this section and under section 1024 or chapter 11. 8 SEC. 1041. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LABOR OR- 9 GANIZATIONS.-(a) The Department shall accord recognition 10 only to a labor organization that,is free from corrupt influ- 11 ences and influences opposed to basic democratic principles. 12 Except as provided in subsection (b), an organization is not 13 required to prove that it is free from such influences if it is 14 subject to a governing requirement adopted by the organiza- 15 tion or by a national or international labor organization or 16 federation of labor organizations with which it is affiliated, or 17 in which it participates, containing explicit and detailed pro- 18 visions to which it subscribes calling for- 19 (1) the maintenance of democratic procedures and 20 practices, including- 21 (A) provisions for periodic elections to be 22 conducted subject to recognized safeguards, and 23 (B) provisions defining and securing the right. 24 of individual members to participate in the affairs 25 of the organization, to receive fair and equal Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 127 126 treatment under the governing rules of the organi- zation, and to receive fair process in disciplinary proceedings; (2) the exclusion from office in the organization of persons affiliated with Communist or other totalitarian movements. and persons identified with corrupt influences; (3) the prohibition of business or financial interests on the part of organization officers and agents which conflict with their duty to the organization and its members; and (4) the maintenance of fiscal integrity in the con- duct of the affairs of the organization, including provi- sions for accounting and financial controls and regular financial reports or summaries to be made available to members. (b) A labor organization may be required to furnish evi- dence of its freedom from corrupt influences opposed to basic democratic principles if there is reasonable cause to believe that- (1) the organization has been suspended or ex- pelled from, or is subject to other sanction by, a parent labor organization, or federation of organizations with which it has been affiliated, because it has. demonstrat- ed an unwillingness or inability to comply with govern- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 128 127 1 ing requirements comparable in purpose to those 2 required by subsection (a); or 3 (2) the organization is in fact subject to influences 4 that would preclude recognition under this chapter. 5 (c) A labor organization which has or seeks recognition 6 as a representative of employees under this chapter shall file 7 financial and other reports with the Assistant Secretary of 8 Labor for Labor Management Relations, provide for bonding 9 of officials and employees of the organization, and comply 10 with trusteeship and election standards. 11 (d) The Assistant Secretary of Labor shall prescribe 12 such regulations as are necessary to carry out this section. 13 Such regulations shall conform generally to the principles ap- 14 plied to labor organizations in the private sector. Complaints 15 of violations of this section shall be filed with the Assistant 16 Secretary. In any matter arising under this section, the As- 17 sistant Secretary may require a labor organization to cease 18 and desist from violations of this section and require it to take 19 such actions as the Assistant Secretary considers appropriate 20 to carry out the policies of this section. 21 (e) This chapter does not authorize participation in the 22 management of a labor organization or acting as a repre- 23 sentative of a labor organization by a management official, a 24 confidential employee, or any other employee if the participa- 25 tion or activity would result in a conflict or apparent conflict Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 129 128 1 of interest or would otherwise be incompatible with law or 2 with the official functions of the management official or confi- 3 dential employee. 4 (f) If the Board finds that any labor organization has 5 wilfully and intentionally violated section 1031(b)(7)(A) by 6 omission or commission with regard to any strike, work stop- 7 page, prohibited picketing or slowdown, the Board may- 8 (1) revoke the exclusive recognition status of the 9 labor organization, which shall then immediately cease 10 to be legally entitled and obligated to represent em- 11 ployees in the unit; or 12 (2) take any other appropriate disciplinary action 13 in addition to or in lieu of such revocation. 14 SEC. 1051. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.-(a) If the 15 Department has received from any person a written assign- 16 ment which authorizes the Department to deduct from the 17 salary of that person amounts for the payment of regular and 18 periodic dues of the exclusive representative, the Department 19 shall honor the assignment. Any such assignment shall be 20 made at no cost to the exclusive representative or the indi- 21 vidual. Except as provided in subsection (b), any such assign- 22 ment may not be revoked for a period of one year from its 23 execution. 24 (b) An assignment for deduction of dues shall terminate 25 when- ' Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 130 129 1 (1) the dues-withholding agreement between the 2 Department and the exclusive representative is termi- 3 nated or ceases to be applicable to the individual; or 4 (2) the employee is suspended or expelled from 5 membership in the exclusive representative. 6 (c) During any period when no labor organization is cer- 7 tified as the exclusive representative of employees in the De- 8 partment, the Department shall have the duty to negotiate 9 with a labor organization which has filed a petition under 10 section 1021(b)(1)(A) if the Board has determined that the 11 petition is valid. Negotiations under this subsection shall be 12 concerned solely with the deduction of dues of the labor orga- 13 nization from the pay of the employees who are members of 14 the labor organization and who make a voluntary allotment 15 for that purpose. Any agreement between the Department 16 and a labor organization under this subsection shall terminate 17 upon the certification of an exclusive representative of any 18 employees to whom the agreement applies. 19 (d) The following provisions shall apply to the use of 20 official time: 21 (1) Any employee representing an exclusive repre- 22 sentative in the negotiation, of a collective-bargaining 23 agreement under this chapter shall be authorized offi- 24 cial time for such purposes, including attendance at im- 25 passe proceedings, during the time the eriiployee other- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 130 wise would be in a duty status. The number of employ- ees for whom official time is authorized under this paragraph shall not exceed the number of individuals designated as representing the Department for such purposes. (2) Any activities performed by any employee re- lating to the internal business of the labor organization, including the solicitation of membership, elections of labor organization officials, and collection of dues, shall be performed during the time the employee is in a non- duty status. (3) The Board shall determine whether any em- ployee participating for, or on behalf of, a labor organi- zation in any phase of proceedings before the Board shall be authorized official time for such purpose during the time the employee would otherwise be in a duty status. (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), any employee representing an exclusive repre- sentative, or engaged in any other matter covered by this chapter, shall be granted official time in any amount the Department and the exclusive representa- tive agree to be reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 132 131 1 CHAPTER 11-GRIEVANCES 2 SEC. 1101. DEFINITION OF GRIEVANCE.-(a) Except 3 as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this chapter, the 4 term "grievance" means any act or condition subject to the 5 control of the Department which is alleged to deprive a 6 member of the Service who is a citizen of the United States 7 of a right or benefit authorized by law or regulation or which 8 is otherwise a source of concern or dissatisfaction to the member, including but not limited to the following: (1) involuntary separation of a member allegedly contrary to law or regulation, or predicated upon al- leged inaccuracy, omission, error, or falsely prejudicial information in any part of the member's official person- nel record; (2) other alleged violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of applicable law, regulation, or pub- lished policy affecting the terms and conditions of the member's employment or career status; '(3) allegedly wrongful disciplinary action against the member; (4) dissatisfaction with respect to the member's physical working environment; (5) alleged inaccuracy, error, omission, or falsely prejudicial information in the member's official person- 25 nel file which is or could be prejudicial to the member; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 133 132 1 ' (6) action alleged to be in the nature of reprisal or 2 other interference with freedom of action in connection 3 with the member's participation in procedures under 4 this chapter; 5 (7) alleged denial of an allowance, premium pay, 6 or other financial benefit to which the member claims 7 entitlement under applicable law or regulation. 8 (b) A grievance may not be filed under this chapter with 9 respect to any of the following: 10 (1) an individual assignment or transfer of a 11 member ordered in accordance with law and regula- 12 tion; 13 (2) the judgment of a selection board established 14 under section 603, a tenure board established under 15 section 322,(b), or any other equivalent body estab- 16 lished by law or regulation which similarly evaluates 17 the performance of members of the Service on a com- 18 parative basis; 19 (3) expiration of a limited or temporary appoint- 20 ment or termination of a limited or temporary appoint- 21 ment under section 661; or 22 (4). any complaint or appeal where a specific stat- 23 utory hearing procedure exists, except as provided in 24 section 1131(b). Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 134 133 1 (c) The scope of grievances described in this section may 2 be modified by written agreement between the Department 3 and the labor organization accorded recognition as the exclu- 4 sive representative of members of the Service under chapter 5 10 (hereinafter "the exclusive representative"). 6 SEC. 1102. GRIEVANCES CONCERNING FORMER MEM- 7 BERS.-Within the time limitations specified in section 1104, 8 a former member of the Service or the surviving spouse (or, if 9 none, another member of the family) of a deceased member or 10 former member of the Service may present a grievance with 11 respect to allegations described in paragraph (7) of section 12 1101(a). 13 SEC. 1103. FREEDOM OF ACTION.-(a) Any person 14 presenting or filing a grievance (hereinafter the "grievant"), 15 and any witness or other person involved in a grievance pro- 16 ceeding, shall be free from any restraint, interference, coer- 17 cion, harassment, discrimination, or reprisal in those proceed- 18 ings or by virtue of them. 19 (b) A grievant who is a member of the bargaining unit 20 represented by an exclusive representative shall be 21 represented at every stage of the proceedings only if repre- 22 sented by that exclusive representative (which may approve 23 the participation in the proceedings by an additional person 24 on the grievant's behalf). Such a grievant has the right to 25 present a grievance on his or her own behalf; however, the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 135 134 1 exclusive representative shall have the right to be present 2 during the grievance proceedings. Any grievant who is not a 3 member of such a bargaining unit has the right at every stage 4 of the proceedings to representation of the grievant's own 5 choosing. The grievant and any representative who is a 6 member of the Service or an officer or employee of the De- 7 partment shall be granted reasonable periods of administra- 8 tive leave to prepare and present the grievance, and to attend 9 proceedings under this chapter. 10 (c) Any witness who is a member of the Service or an 11 officer or employee of the Department shall be granted rea- 12 sonable periods of administrative leave to appear and testify 13 at any such proceedings. 14 (d) The Foreign Service Grievance Board is authorized 15 to assure that no record of- 16 (1) a determination by the Secretary to reject a 17 Grievance Board recommendation, 18 (2) a finding by the Grievance Board against the 19 grievant, or 20 (3) the fact that a proceeding is pending or has 21 been held, 22 shall be entered in the personnel records of the grievant 23 (except by order of the Grievance Board as a remedy for the 24 grievance) or those of any other person connected with the 25 grievance. The Department shall maintain records pertaining Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 136 135 1 to grievances under appropriate safeguards to preserve confi- 2 dentiality. 3 (e) The Department will use its best endeavors to expe- 4 dite security clearance procedures whenever necessary to 5 insure a fair and prompt resolution of a grievance. 6 SEC. 1104. TIME LIMITATIONS.-(a) A grievance is 7 forever barred, unless it is presented within a period of three 8 years after the occurrence or occurrences giving rise to the 9 grievance or such shorter period as may be agreed to by the 10 Department and the exclusive representative. 11 (b) There shall be excluded from the computation of the 12 three-year period specified in subsection (a) any time during 13 which, as determined by the Foreign Service Grievance 14 Board, the grievant was unaware of the grounds for the 15 grievance and could not have discovered such grounds 16 through reasonable diligence. 17 (c) If a grievance is not resolved under Department pro- 18 cedures (which have been negotiated with the exclusive rep- 19 resentative, if any) within ninety days of written presenta- 20 tion, the exclusive representative (on behalf of a grievant 21 who is a member of the bargaining unit) or a grievant who is 22 not a member-of such bargaining unit shall be entitled to file 23 a grievance with the Foreign Service Grievance Board for its 24 consideration and resolution. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 136 1 SEC. 1111. THE FOREIGN SERVICE GRIEVANCE 2 BOARD.-(a) There is established the Foreign Service Griev- 3 ance Board (hereinafter the "Board"). The Board shall con- 4 sist of not fewer than five members, all of whom shall be 5 independent, distinguished citizens of the United States, well 6 known for their integrity, who are not presently serving as 7 officers, employees, or consultants of the Department or as 8 members of the Service. 9 (b) The chairperson and other members of the Board 10 shall be appointed by the Secretary, from nominees approved 11 in writing by the agencies to which this chapter applies and 12 the exclusive representative (if any) of employees in each 13 such agency. Each member of the Board shall be appointed 14 for a term of two years, subject to renewal with the same 15 written approvals required for initial appointment. In the 16 event of a vacancy on the Board, an appointment for the 17 unexpired term may be made by the Secretary in accordance 18 with the procedures specified in this section. In the event of 19 inability to obtain agreement on a nominee, each agency and 20 each exclusive representative whose agreement is required 21 shall select two nominees and each such agency and exclu- 22 sive representative in an order determined by lot, shall in 23 turn strike a name from a list of such nominees until only one 24 remains. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 137 1 (c) Members of the Board who are not employees of the 2 Government shall receive compensation for each day they are 3 performing their duties (including travetime) at the daily rate 4 paid an individual at grade 18 of the General Schedule de- 5 scribed in section 5104 of title 5, United States Code. 6 (d) The Secretary may remove a Board member,upon 7 written notice for corruption, neglect of duty, malfeasance or 8 demonstrated incapacity to perform his or her functions, es- 9 tablished at a hearing, except where the right to a hearing is 10 waived in writing. 11 (e) The Board may obtain facilities, services and sup- 12 plies through.the general administrative services of the De- 13 partment. All expenses of the Board, including necessary 14 costs of a grievant's travel and travel-related expenses, shall 15 be paid out of funds appropriated to the Department for obli- 16 gation and expenditure by the Board. At the request of the 17 Board, officers and employees of the Department and mem- 18 bers of the Service may be assigned as staff employees for 19 the Board. Within the limits of appropriated funds, the Board 20 may appoint and fix the compensation of such other employ- 21 ees as the Board considers necessary to carry out its func- 22 tions. The members, officers, and employees so appointed or 23 assigned shall be responsible solely to the Board, and the 24 Board shall prepare the performance evaluation reports for 25 such members, officers, and employees. The records of the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 139 138 1 Board shall be maintained by the Board and shall be separate 2 from all other records of the Department. 3 SEc. 1112. BOARD PROCEDURES.-The Board may 4 adopt regulations concerning its organization and procedures. 5 Such regulations shall include provision for the following: 6 (1) The Board shall conduct a hearing at the 7 request of a grievant in any case which involves- 8 (A) disciplinary action or a grievant's retire- 9 ment from the Service under section 641 or 642, 10 or 11 (B) issues which, in the judgment of the 12 Board, can best be resolved by a hearing or 13 presentation of oral argument. 14 (2) The grievant, the grievant's representatives, 15 and the Department's representatives are entitled to be 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 present at the hearing. The Board may, after consider- ing the views of the parties and any other individuals connected with the grievance, decide that a hearing should be open to others. Testimony at a hearing shall be given by oath or affirmation which any Board member or person designated by the Board shall have authority to administer. (3) Each party shall be entitled to examine and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing or by deposi- tion, and to serve interrogatories upon another party Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 140 139 and have such interrogatories answered by the other party unless the Board finds such interrogatory irrele- vant, immaterial or unduly repetitive. Upon request of the Board, or upon a request of the grievant deemed relevant and material by the Board, an agency shall promptly make available, at the hearing or by deposi- tion any witness under its control, supervision, or re- sponsibility, except that if the Board determines that the presence of such witness at the hearing is required for just resolution of the grievance, then the witness shall be made available at the hearing, with necessary costs and travel expenses provided by the Department. (4) During any hearing held by' the Board, any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the Board shall exclude any irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence as determined under sec- tion 556 of title 5, United States Code. (5) A verbatim transcript shall be made of any hearing and shall be part of the record of proceedings. (6) In those grievances in which the Board holds no hearing, the Board shall offer to each party the op- portunity to review and to supplement, by written sub- missions, the record of proceedings prior to its decision. The Board decision shall be based exclusively on the record of proceedings. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 140 (7) The Board may act by or through panels or individual members designated by the Chairperson, except that hearings within the continental United States shall be held by panels of at least three mem- bers unless the parties agree otherwise. References in this chapter to the Board shall be considered to be references to a panel or member of the Board where (8) If the Board determines that the Department is considering the involuntary separation of the griev- ant, disciplinary action against the grievant, or recov- ery from the grievant of alleged overpayment of salary, expenses, or allowances, which is related to a griev- ance pending before the Board, and that such action should be suspended, the Department shall suspend such action until the Board has ruled upon the griev- ance. Notwithstanding such suspension of action, the head of the agency concerned or a chief of mission or principal officer may exclude the grievant from official appropriate. All members of the Board shall act impartial individuals in considering grievances. premises or from the performance of specified functions when such exclusion is determined in writing to be es- sential to the functioning of the post or office to which the grievant is assigned. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 142 141 1 (9) A grievant whose grievance is found not to be 2 meritorious by the Board may obtain reconsideration 3 by the Board only upon presenting newly discovered or 4 previously unavailable material evidence not previously 5 considered by the Board, and then only upon approval 6 of the Board. 7 SEC. 1113. BOARD DECISIONS.-(a) Upon completion 8 of its proceedings, the 'Board shall expeditiously decide the 9 grievance on the basis of the record of proceedings, and in 10 light of previous adjudications of similar issues under this 11 chapter and under section 1024. In each case the decision of 12 the Board shall be in writing, and shall include findings of 13 fact and a statement of the reasons for the Board's decision. 14 (b) If the Board finds that the grievance is meritorious, 15 the Board shall have the authority, within the limitations of 16 17 .18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the Secretary's authority, to direct the Department- (1) to correct any official personnel record relating to the grievant which the Board finds to be inaccurate, erroneous, or falsely prejudicial; (2) to reverse an administrative decision denying the grievant compensation or any other perquisite of employment authorized by law or regulation when the Board finds that such denial was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law or regulation; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 143 142 1 (3) to retain in the Service a member whose sepa- 2 ration would be in consequence of the matter by which 3 the member is aggrieved; . 4 (4) to reinstate the grievant with back pay, under 5 applicable law and regulations, where it is clearly es- 6 tablished that the grievant's separation or suspension 7 without pay was unjustified or unwarranted; and 8 (5) to take such other remedial action as may be 9 appropriate in procedures agreed to by the Department 10 and the exclusive representative. 11 (c) Orders of the Board under this chapter shall be final, 12 subject only to judicial review as provided in section 1141, 13 except as provided in subsection (d). 14 (d) If the Board finds that the grievance is meritorious 15 and that remedial action should be taken that relates directly 16 to promotion or assignment of the grievant or to other reme- 17 dial action not otherwise provided in this section, or if the 18 Board finds that the evidence before it warrants disciplinary 19 action against any officer or employee of the Department or 20 member of the Service, it shall make an appropriate recom- 21 mendation to the Secretary. The Secretary shall make a 22 written decision on the Board's recommendation. A recom- 23 mendation of the Board may be rejected in whole or in part if 24 the recommendation would be contrary to law, would ad- 25 versely affect the foreign policy or security of the United Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 143 1 States, or would substantially impair the efficiency of the De- 2 partment or the Service. If the Secretary rejects the recom- 3 mendation in whole or in part, the decision shall specify the 4 reasons for such action. Pending the Secretary's decision, 5 there shall be no ex parte communication concerning the 6 grievance between the Secretary and any person involved in 7 the Board's proceedings. The Secretary shall, however, have 8 access to the entire record of the Board's proceedings. 9 SEC. 1121. ACCESS TO RECORDS.-(a) In considering 10 the validity of a grievance, the Board shall have access, to 11 the extent permitted by law, to any agency record considered 12 by the Board to be relevant to the grievant and the subject 13 matter of the grievance. 14 (b) The Department shall, subject to applicable law, 15 promptly furnish the grievant any Department record which 16 the grievant requests to substantiate the grievance and which 17 the Board determines is relevant and material to the proceed- 18, ings. When deemed appropriate by the Board, a grievant 19 may be supplied with only a summary or extract of classified 20 material. If a request by a grievant for a document is denied 21 prior to or during the Department's consideration of a griev- 22 ance, such denial may be raised by the grievant as an 23 integral part of the grievance before the Board. 24 (c) This chapter does not require disclosure of any 25 agency record to the Board or a grievant where the head of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 145 144 1 agency or deputy determines in writing that such disclosure 2 would adversely affect the foreign policy or national security 3 of the United States. 4 (d) The grievant in any case decided by the Board shall 5 have access to the Board's record of proceedings and 6 decision. 7 SEC. 1131. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER REMEDIES.- 8 (a) A grievant may not file a grievance with the Board if the 9 grievant has formally requested, prior to filing a grievance, 10 that the matter or matters which are the basis of the griev- 11 ance be considered or resolved and relief be provided, under 12 another provision of law, regulation, or Executive order, and 13 the matter has been carried to final decision thereunder on its 14 merits or is still under consideration. 15 (b) If a grievant is not prohibited from filing a grievance 16 under subsection (a), the grievant may file with the Board a 17 grievance which is also eligible for consideration, resolution, 18 and relief under chapter 12 of title 5, United States Code, or 19 a regulation or Executive order other than under this chap- 20 ter. Such an election of remedies shall be final upon the ac- 21 ceptance of jurisdiction by the Board. 22 SEC. 1141. JUDICIAL REVIEW.-Any aggrieved party 23 may obtain judicial review of regulations prescribed by the 24 Secretary under this chapter and final action of the Secretary 25 or the Board on any grievance in the district courts of the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 146 145 1 United States in accordance with the standards set forth in 2 chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. Section 706 of title 3 5, United States Code, shall apply without limitation or 4 exception. 5 CHAPTER 12-COMPATIBILITY OF PERSONNEL SYSTEMS 6 - SEC. 1201. COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE FOREIGN 7 SERVICE AND OTHER GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL SYS- 8 TEMS.-The Service shall be administered to the extent 9 practicable in conformity with general policies and regula- 10 tions of the Government. The Secretary shall consult with 11 the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Di- 12 rector of the Office of Management and Budget, and the 13 heads of other agencies as the President shall determine, 14 through appropriate mechanisms, in order to assure compati- 15 bility of the Service to the extent practicable with other Gov- 16 ernment personnel systems. 17 SEC. 1202. COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN CIVIL SERVICE 18 AND FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.-(a) In 19 order to maintain existing conformity between the Civil Serv- 20 ice Retirement and Disability System (subchapter III of 21 chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code) and the Foreign 22 Service Retirement and Disability System. (chapter 8 of this 23 Act), whenever a law of general applicability is enacted 24 which- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 147 146 1 (1) affects current or former participants, annu- 2 itants or survivors under the Civil Service Retirement 3 and Disability System; and 4 (2) alters substantially identical treatment existing 5 immediately prior to the enactment of such law, under 6 a corresponding provision of law affecting participants, 7 former participants, annuitants or survivors under the 8 Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System; 9 such provision of law shall be deemed to extend to the latter 10 System so that it applies in like manner with respect to For- 11 eign Service Retirement and Disability System participants, 12 former participants, annuitants or survivors. 13 ? (b) The President is authorized by Executive order to 14 prescribe regulations to implement this section and to make 15 such extension retroactive to a date no earlier than the effec- 16 tive date of such provision for the Civil Service Retirement 17 and Disability System. Any provisions of an Executive order 18 issued under the authority of this section shall modify, super- 19 sede, or render inapplicable, as the case may be, to the 20 extent inconsistent therewith- 21 (1) all provisions of law enacted prior to the effec- 22 tive date of the provision of such Executive order, and 23 (2) any prior provision of an Executive order 24 issued under authority of this section. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 148 147 20 21 22 23 SEC. 1203. COMPATIBILITY AMONG AGENCIES EM- PLOYING FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL.-The Service shall be administered to the extent practicable in a manner that will assure maximum compatibility among agencies au- thorized by law to utilize the Foreign Service personnel system. To this end, the heads of such agencies shall consult regularly with the Secretary. SEC. 1204. CONSOLIDATED AND UNIFORM ADMINIS- TRATION.-The Secretary shall on a continuing basis con- sider the need for uniformity of personnel policies and proce- dures and (in accordance with section 23 of the Act of August 1, 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2695)), consolidation of personnel functions among agencies utilizing the Foreign Service per- sonnel system. Where feasible, the Secretary shall encourage the development of uniform policies and procedures and con- solidated personnel functions in consultation with such agencies. SEC. 1205. EXCLUSIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRE- TARY.-The Secretary alone among agency heads shall per- form the following functions, on behalf of all concerned agen- cies as appropriate: (1) designation of offices abroad as diplomatic in nature under section 102(3); Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 149 148 1 (2) supervision and direction of the Director Gen- 2 eral under section 204 and the Inspector General 3 under section 205; 4 (3) functions under section 206 regarding the 5 Board of the Foreign Service; 6 (4) issuance of regulations under section 333(b) 7 regarding employment of family members of Govern- 8 ment personnel; 9 (5) recommendations to the President under sec- 10 tion 341 that personnel of the Service serve under 11 diplomatic or consular commissions; 12 (6) recommendations to the President under sec- 13 tion 441(d) that members of the Senior Foreign Service 14 be awarded grants of performance pay for especially 15 meritorious or distinguished service; 16 (7) issuance of regulations under section 451(c) 17 regarding local compensation plans; 18 (8) determinations under section 453(a) and issu- 19 ance of regulations under section 453(d) regarding 20 compensation for imprisoned foreign nationals; 21 (9) operation of the Foreign Service Institute 22 under chapter 7; 23 (10) administration of the Foreign Service Retire- 24 ment and Disability System under chapter 8; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 150 149 1 (11) administration of health care programs under 2 section 921; 3 (12) appointment and removal of members of the 4 Foreign Service Labor Relations Board and provision 5 of facilities to such Board under section 1011; and 6 (13) appointment and removal of members of the 7 Foreign Service Grievance Board and provision of 8 facilities to such Board under section 1111. 9 TITLE II-TRANSITION, AMENDMENTS TO OTHER 10 LAWS, REPEALS, AND MISCELLANEOUS PRO- 11 VISIONS 12 CHAPTER 1-TRANSITION 13 SEC. 2101. CONVERSION TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE 14 SCHEDULE.-(a) The Secretary of State (hereinafter "the 15 Secretary") shall convert to the appropriate class in the For- 16 eign Service Schedule established under section 421 of the 17 Foreign Service Act of 1979 those members of the Foreign 18 Service- 19 (1) who on the effective date of this Act are serv- 20 ing under appointments at or below class 3 of the 21 schedule established under section 412 or 414 of the 22 Foreign Service Act of 1946 or at any class in the 23 schedule established under section 415 of such Act 24 as- 25 (A) Foreign Service officers, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 151 150 1 (B) Foreign Service Reserve officers with 2 limited or unlimited tenure, or 3 (C) Foreign Service Staff officers or 4 employees; and 5 (2) who (with respect to Reserve and Staff officers 6 and employees) the Secretary determines are available 7 for worldwide assignment. 8 (b) Those Reserve and Staff officers and employees who 9 the Secretary determines are not available for worldwide 10 availability shall also be converted to the appropriate class 11 under such section 421 if- 12 (1) the Secretary certifies that there is a need for 13 their services in the Foreign Service; and 14 (2) they affirm in writing their obligation to accept .15 worldwide availability for assignment as a condition of 16 employment. 17 SEC. 2102. CONVERSION TO THE SENIOR FOREIGN 18 SERVICE.-(a) Foreign Service officers and Foreign Service 19 Reserve officers with limited and unlimited tenure who are 20 serving under appointments at class 2 or a higher class of the 21 schedule established under section 412 or 414 of the Foreign 22 Service Act of 1946 on the effective date of this Act may at 23 any time within one hundred and twenty days after such date 24 elect in a written instrument submitted to the Secretary to 25 request appointment to the Senior Foreign Service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 151 1 (b) Except as provided in subsection (d), if a request 2 under subsection (a) is submitted by a Foreign Service Re- 3 serve officer with limited tenure, the Secretary shall grant a 4 limited appointment of such officer to the appropriate class 5 established under section 411 of the Foreign Service Act of 6 1979. 7 (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), if a request 8 under subsection (a) is submitted by a Foreign Service officer 9 or a Foreign Service Reserve officer with unlimited tenure, 10 the Secretary shall recommend to the President a career ap- 11 pointment of such officer, by and with the advice and consent 12 of the Senate, to the appropriate class established under 13 section 411 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979. 14 (d) If the Secretary determines that a Reserve officer 15 with limited or unlimited tenure who submits a request under 16 subsection (a) is not available for worldwide assignment, an 17 appointment under subsection (b) or a recommendation for 18 appointment under subsection (c) shall be made only if- 19 20 21 22 23 24 (1) the Secretary certifies that there is a need for the services of such officer in the Senior Foreign Serv- ice; and (2) such officer affirms in writing his or her obli- gation to accept worldwide availability for assignment as a condition of employment. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 153 152 1 (e) If a request for appointment to the Senior Foreign 2 Service as described in subsection (a) is submitted to the Sec- 3 retary, but more than one hundred and twenty days after the 4 effective date of this Act, the Secretary (in the case of a 5 Foreign Service Reserve officer with limited tenure) may 6 grant a limited appointment or (in the case of a Foreign Serv- 7 ice officer or Foreign Service Reserve officer with unlimited 8 tenure) may recommended to the President a career appoint- 9 ment of the requesting officer to the appropriate class estab- 10 lished under section 411 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979, 11 subject to the conditions specified in subsection (d) and such 12 other conditions as the Secretary may prescribe in light of 13 the provisions of the Foreign Service Act of 1979 relating to 14 promotion into the Senior Foreign Service. 15 (f) Any officer of the Foreign Service who is eligible to 16 submit a request under subsection (a) and- 17 (1) who does not submit such a request within one 18 hundred and twenty days after the effective date of this 19 Act, or 20 (2) who submits such a request more than one 21 hundred and twenty days after the effective date of this 22 Act and is not appointed to the Senior Foreign Service 23 for any reason other than failure to meet the conditions 24 specified in subsection (d), Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 154 153 1 may remain in the Foreign Service for not more than three 2 years after the effective date of this Act. During such period, 3 the officer shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign 4 Service Act of 1979 regarding members of the Senior For- 5 eign Service, except that such officer shall not be eligible to 6 compete for performance pay under section 441 of such Act, 7 and shall not be eligible for a limited career extension as 8 described in section 641(b) of such Act. Upon separation, any 9 such officer who is a participant in the Foreign Service Re- 10 tirement and Disability System shall be entitled to retirement 11 benefits determined in accordance with chapter 8 of the 12 Foreign Service Act of 1979. 13 SEC. 2103. CONVERSION TO THE CIVIL SERVICE. '(a) 14 Members of the Foreign Service who are serving on the ef- 15 fective date of the Act in a personnel category described in 16 section 2101(a)(1) or 2102(a) and who are not converted into 17 an appropriate class in the Foreign Service Schedule under 18 section 2101 or in the Senior Foreign Service under section 19 2102 because they do not meet the conditions specified in 20 section 2101(b) or 2102(d) shall, not later than three years 21 after the effective date of this Act, be converted to the appro- 22 priate grade in the General Schedule described in section 23 5104 of title 5, United States Code, notwithstanding any 24 other law, except that such members who meet the eligibility 25 requirements for the Senior Executive Service and who elect Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 155 154 1 to join that Service shall be converted to the Senior Execu- 2 tive Service in the appropriate rate of basic pay established 3 under section 5382 of title 5, United States Code. 4 (b)(1) This section shall not apply prior to July 1, 1981, 5 to personnel of. the International Communication Agency 6 who are covered by an existing agreement with the exclusive 7 representative of those personnel. Prior to that date, mem- 8 bers of the Service exempted from conversion by this subsec- 9 tion may elect to remain in the Foreign Service and, notwith- 10 standing any other provision of law, the status, promotion, 11 class, and tenure of such personnel shall continue to be gov- 12 erned by the Foreign Service Act of 1946 and Public Law 13 90-494 (as those Acts were in effect immediately prior to the 14 effective date of this Act). The Foreign Servite Act of 1979 15 (except sections 411, 421, 431, 441, and 531) shall also 16 apply to such members of the Service, and such personnel 17 shall be considered personnel of the Service for purposes of 18 sections 103, 442, 511, 521, 651, and 803 of this Act. ? 19 (2) The President shall prescribe salary rates for the 20 personnel who are temporarily excepted from conversion 21 under this subsection in accordance with the salary classes 22 established under sections 414 and 415 of the Foreign Serv- 23 ice Act of 1946. Salary rates for such personnel shall be 24 adjusted at the same time as rates of basic pay are adjusted Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 156 155 1 for the General Schedule and in such manner as to preserve 2 without prejudice the comparable rates of pay for each class. 3 SEC. 2104. PRESERVATION OF STATUS AND BENE- - FITS.-(a)(1) Every member of the Foreign Service who is 4 5 converted to a different personnel system or category under 6 this chapter shall be converted, notwithstanding any other 7 law, to the class or grade and salary rate that most closely 8 corresponds to the class and step at which the member was 9 serving prior to conversion, except that no conversion shall 10 cause any individual to incur areduction in his or her class, 11 grade, or basic rate of salary: Provided, That until such con- 12 versions are made the affected personnel shall receive basic 13 salary and allowances as if they had been converted under 14 section 2101 or 2102, as appropriate, on the effective date of 15 this Act. 16 (2) Conversions of members of the Foreign Service to 17 new salary schedules under sections 2101 and 2102 shall in 18 each case be to a class and step determined, in accordance 19 with regulations prescribed under section 2105 to correspond 20 to the class and step under which the member was serving 21 immediately prior to conversion. Such regulations shall 22 assure that no such conversion shall cause any individual to 23 incur a reduction in salary. 24 (b) Any participant in the Foreign Service Retirement 25 and Disability System who would normally participate in the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 157 156 1 Civil Service Retirement and Disability System by virtue of 2 the enactment of this Act or conversion under this chapter 3 shall remain a participant in the Foreign Service Retirement 4 and Disability System for one hundred and twenty days after 5 participation in such system would otherwise cease. During 6 such one hundred and twenty-day period, the individual may 7 elect in writing to continue to participate in the Foreign 8 Service Retirement and Disability System instead of the Civil 9 Service Retirement and Disability System. If 'such an elec- 10 tion is not made, the individual will then be transferred to the 11 Civil Service Retirement and Disability System and contribu- 12 tions made by the participant to the Foreign Service Retire- 13 ment and Disability Fund will be transferred to the Civil 14 Service Retirement and Disability Fund. 15 (c) Members of the Foreign Service who are converted 16 under this chapter shall be converted to the type of appoint- 17 ment which corresponds most closely in tenure to the type of 18 appointment under which they were serving immediately 19 prior to such conversion: Provided, That no conversion shall 20 operate to extend the duration of any limited appointment or 21 previously applicable time in class. Any member of the Serv- 22 ice who is converted to the Civil Service under this chapter 23 shall be deemed to be an employee for purposes of subchapter 24 II of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 157 1 (d) Any person who on the effective date of this Act is 2 serving- 9 3 (1) under an appointment in the Foreign Service, 4 or 5 (2) in any other office or position continued by 6 this Act, 7 may continue to serve under such appointment, subject to the 8 provisions of this Act, and need not be reappointed by virtue 9 of the enactment of this Act. 10 (e) Section 642 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979 shall 11 become applicable effective five years after the effective date 12 of this Act to members of the Foreign Service- 13 (1) who are serving under career appointments on 14 the date of enactment of this Act, and . 15 (2) who were not subject to section. 633(a)(2) of 16 the Foreign Service Act of 1946 immediately prior to 17 the effective date of this Act. 18 SEc. 2105. REGULATIONS.-Under the direction, of the 19 President, the Secretary is authorized to prescribe regula- 20 tions for the implementation of this chapter. 21 SEC. 2106. AUTHORITY OF OTHER AGENCIES.-The 22 heads of agencies other than the Department of State which 23 employs Foreign Service personnel are authorized to perform 24 any of the functions vested in the Secretary by this chapter 25 with respect to personnel of the Service in their respective Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 159 158 1 agencies. Such agency heads shall consult with the Secretary 2 in the exercise of such functions. 7 3 CHAPTER 2-AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS 4 SEc. 2201. BASIC AUTHORITY.-(a) The Act entitled 5 "An Act to provide certain basic authority for the Depart- 6 ment of State", approved August 1, 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2684 7 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 8 new sections: 9 "SEc. 24. GIFTS.-(a) The Secretary of State may 10 accept on behalf of the United States gifts made uncondition- 11 ally by will or otherwise for the benefit of the Department of 12 State including the Foreign Service or for the carrying out of 13 any of its functions. Conditional gifts may be so accepted at 14 the discretion of the Secretary, and the principal of and 15 income from any such conditional gift shall be held, invested, 16 reinvested, and used in accordance with its conditions, but no 17 gift shall be accepted which is conditioned upon any income 18 thereof unless such expenditure has been approved by Act of 19 Congress. 20 "(b) Any unconditional gift of money accepted pursuant 21 to the authority granted in subsection (a), the net proceeds 22 from the liquidation pursuant to subsection (c) or (d) of any 23 other property so accepted, and the proceeds. of insurance on 24 any such gift property not used for its restoration, shall be 25 deposited in the Treasury of the United States and are Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 160 159 1 hereby appropriated and shall be held in trust by the Secre- 2 tary of the Treasury for the benefit of the Department of 3 State including the Foreign Service, and the Secretary of the 4 Treasury may invest and reinvest such funds in interest-bear- 5 ing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaran- 6 teed as to both principal and interest by the United States. 7 Such gifts and the income from such investments shall be 8 available for expenditure in the operation of the Department 9 of State including the Foreign Service and the performance 10 of its functions, subject to the same examination and audit as is provided for appropriations made for the Foreign Service by Congress. "(c) The evidences of any unconditional gift of intangi- ble personal property, other than money, accepted pursuant to subsection (a), shall be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury, who may hold or liquidate them, except that they 17 shall be liquidated upon the request of the Secretary of State 18 whenever necessary to meet payments required in the oper- 19 ation of the Department including the Service or the perform- 20 ance of its functions. The proceeds and income from any such 21 property held by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be avail- 22 able for expenditures as provided in subsection (b). 23 "(d) The Secretary of State shall hold any real property 24 or any tangible personal property accepted unconditionally 25 pursuant to subsection (a), and shall permit such property to Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 161 160 1 be used for the operation of the Department including the 2 Service and the performance of its functions, or may lease or 3 hire such property, and may insure such property, and de- 4 posit the income thereof with the Secretary of the Treasury 5 to be available for expenditure as provided in subsection (b). 6 The income from any such real property or tangible personal 7 property shall be available for expenditure at the discretion of 8 the Secretary of State for the maintenance, preservation, or 9 repair and insurance of such property and any proceeds from 10 insurance may be used to restore the property insured. Any 11 such property when not required for the operation of the De- 12 partment including the Service or the performance of its 13 functions may be liquidated by the Secretary; and the pro- 14 ceeds thereof deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury 15 whenever in the Secretary's judgment the purposes of the 16 gift will be served thereby. 17 "(e) For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift 18 taxes, any gift, devise, or bequest accepted by the Secretary .19 under this section shall be deemed to be a gift, devise, or 20 bequest to and for the use of the United States. 21 "SEC. 25. AUTHORIZATION To RETAIN ATTOR- 22 NE.Ys.-The Secretary of State may, without regard to sec- 23 tion 3106 of title 5, United States Code, authorize a principal 24 officer of the Foreign Service to procure legal services when- 25 ever such services are required for the protection of the inter- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 161 1 ests of the Government or to enable a member of the Service 2 to carry on the member's work efficiently. 3 "SEC. 26. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR 4 FAMILY MEMBERS.-(a) In order to expand employment op- 5 portunities for family members of United States Government 6 personnel assigned abroad, the Secretary of State shall seek 7 to conclude such bilateral and multilateral agreements as will 8 facilitate the employment of such family members in foreign 9 economies. 10 "(b) Any member of a family of Foreign Service person- 11 nel may accept gainful employment in a foreign country 12 unless such employment- 13 "(1) would violate any law of such country or of 14 the United States; or 15 "(2) could, as certified in writing by the Chief of 16 the United States Diplomatic Mission in such country, 17 damage the interests of the United States. 18 "SEC. 27. USE OF VEHICLES.-Notwithstanding the 19 provisions of section 5 of the Act of July 16, 1914 (31 20 U.S.C. 638a), the Secretary of State may authorize any prin- 21 cipal officer to approve the use of Government-owned or 22 leased vehicles located at the principal officer's post for 23 transportation of United States Government employees and 24 their families when public transportation is unsafe or not 25 available. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 163 162 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 "SEC. 28. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.-whenever the Secretary of State determines that educational facilities are not available, or that existing educational facilities are inad- equate, to meet the needs of children of American citizens stationed outside the United States engaged in carrying out Government activities, he is authorized, in such manner as he deems appropriate and under such regulations as he may pre- scribe, to establish, operate, and maintain primary schools, and school dormitories and related educational facilities for primary and secondary schools, outside the United States, or to make grants of funds for such purposes, or otherwise pro- vide for such educational facilities. The provisions of the For- eign Service Buildings Act, 1926, as amended, and of para- graphs (h) and (i) of section 3 of this Act, may be utilized by the Secretary in providing assistance for educational facili- ties. Assistance may include, but shall not be limited to, 17 hiring, transporting, and payment of teachers and other nec- 18 essary personnel. 19 "SEC. 29. MALPRACTICE PROTECTION.-(a) The 20 remedy- 21 "(1) against the United States provided by sec- 22 tions 1346(b) and 2672 of title 28 of the United States 23 Code, or 24 "(2) through proceedings for compensation or 25 other benefits from the United States as provided by Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 164 163 1 any other law, where the availability of such benefits 2 precludes a remedy under such sections, 3 for damages for personal injury, including death, allegedly 4 arising from malpractice or negligence of a physician, dentist, 5 nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical (including medical and 6 dental assistants and technicians, nursing assistants, and 7 therapists) or other supporting personnel of the Department 8 of State in furnishing medical care or related services, includ- 9 ing the conducting of clinical studies or investigations, while 10 in the exercise of his or her duties in or for the Department of 11 State or any other Federal department, agency, or instru- 12 mentality shall be exclusive of any other civil action or pro- 13 ceeding by reason of the same subject matter against such 14 physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical or other 15 supporting personnel (or his or her estate) whose act or omis- 16 sion gave rise to such claim. 17 "(b) The United States Government shall defend any 18 civil action or proceeding brought in any court against any 19 person referred to in subsection (a) of this section (or his or 20 her estate) for any such damage or injury. Any such person 21 against whom such civil action or proceeding is brought shall 22 deliver, within such time after date of service or knowledge 23 of service as determined by the Attorney General, all process 24 served upon him or her or an attested true copy thereof to 25 whomever was designated by the Secretary to receive such Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 165 164 1 papers and such person shall promptly furnish copies of the 2 pleading and process therein to the United States attorney 3 for the district embracing the place wherein the proceeding is 4 brought, to the Attorney General, and to the Secretary. 5 "(c) Upon a certification by the Attorney General that 6 the defendant was acting within the scope of his or her em- 7 ployment in or for the Department of State or any other Fed- 8 eral department, agency, or instrumentality at the time of the 9 incident out of which the suit arose, any such civil action or 10 proceeding commenced in a State court shall be removed 11 without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney Gener- 12 al to the district court of the United States of the district and 13 division embracing the place wherein it is pending and the 14 proceeding deemed a tort action brought against the United 15 States under the provisions of title 28 of the United States 16 Code and all references thereto. Should a United States dis- 17 trict court determine on a hearing on a motion to remand 18 held before a trial on the merits that the case so removed is 19 one in which a remedy by suit within the meaning of subsec- 20 tion (a) of this section is not available against the United 21 States, the case shall be remanded to the State court except 22 that where such remedy is precluded because, of the availabil- 23 ity of a remedy through proceedings for compensation or 24 other benefits from the United States as provided by any 25 other law, the case shall be dismissed, but in that event, the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 166 165 1 running of any limitation of time for commencing, or filing an 2 application or claim in, such proceedings for compensation or 3 other benefits shall be deemed to have been suspended during 4 the pendency of the civil action or proceeding under this 5 section. 6 "(d) The Attorney General may compromise or settle 7 any claim asserted in such civil action or proceeding in the 8 manner provided in section 2677 of title 28 of the United 9 States Code and with the same effect. 10 "(e) For purposes of this section, the provisions of sec- 11 tion 2680(h) of title 28 of the United States Code shall not 12 apply to any tort enumerated therein arising out of negli- 13 gence in the furnishing of medical care or related services, 14 including the conducting of clinical studies or investigations. 15 "(f) The Secretary may, to the extent he deems appro- 16 priate, hold harmless or provide liability insurance for any 17 person to whom the immunity provisions of subsection (a) of 18 this section apply, for damages for personal injury, including 19 death, negligently caused by any such person while acting 20 within the scope of his or her office or employment and as a 21 result of the furnishing of medical care or related services, 22 including the conducting of clinical studies or investigations, 23 if such person is assigned to a foreign area or detailed for 24 service with other than a Federal agency or institution, or if 25. the circumstances are such as are likely to preclude the rem- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 167 166 1 edies of third persons against the United States provided by 2 sections 1346(b) and 2672 of title 28 of the United States 3 Code, for such damage or injury. 4 "(g) For purposes of this section, any medical care or 5 related service covered by this section and performed abroad 6 by a covered person at the direction or with the approval of 7 the United States Ambassador or other principal representa- 8 tive of the United States in the area shall be deemed to be 9 within the scope of employment of the individual performing 10 the service. 11 "SEC. 30. POST EMPLOYEE SERVICES.-(a) The Sec- 12 retary of State may authorize and assist in the establishment, 13 maintenance, and operation by civilian officers and employees 14 of the Government of non-Government-operated services and 15 facilities at posts abroad, including the furnishing of space, 16 utilities, and properties owned or leased by the Government 17 for. use by its diplomatic, consular, and other missions and 18 posts abroad. The provisions of the Foreign Service Buildings 19 Act of 1926 (22 U.S.C. 292-300) and section 13 of this Act 20 may be utilized by the Secretary in providing such assistance. 21 "(b) The Secretary may establish and maintain emer- 22 gency commissary or mess services in places abroad where in 23 the Secretary's judgment, such services are necessary tempo- 24 rarily to insure the effective and efficient performance of offi- 25 cial duties and responsibilities. Reimbursements incident to Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 168 167 1 the maintenance and operation of commissary or mess service 2 under this subsection shall be at not less than cost as deter- 3 mined by the Secretary and shall be used as working funds: 4 Provided, That an amount equal to the amount expended for 5 such services shall be covered into the Treasury as miscella- 6 neous receipts. 7 "(c) Services and facilities established under this section 8 shall be made available, insofar as practicable, to officers and 9 employees of all agencies and their dependents who are sta- 10 tioned in the locality abroad. Such services and facilities shall 11 not be established in localities where another agency oper- 12 ates similar services or facilities unless the Secretary deter- 13 mines that additional services or facilities are necessary. 14 Other agencies shall to the extent practicable avoid duplicat- 15 ing the facilities and services provided or assisted by the Sec- 16 retary under this section. 17 "(d) Charges at any post abroad for a service or facility 18 provided, authorized, or assisted under this section shall be at 19 the same rate for all civilian personnel of the Government 20 serviced thereby, and all charges for' supplies furnished to 21 such a service or facility abroad by any agency shall be at the 22 same rate as that charged by the furnishing agency to its 23 comparable civilian services and facilities.". 24 (b) The authorities conferred upon the Secretary of 25 State by sections 24 and 25 of such Act shall continue to be Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 168 1 available to the Director of the International Communication 2 Agency and the Director of the International Development 3 Cooperation Agency. 4 SEC. 2202. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.-(a) The 5 Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) is amended as 6 follows: 7 (1) in section 5(f)(1)(A), strike out "section 8 852(a)(1) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as 9 amended (22 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1))" and insert in lieu 10 thereof "section 851(a) of the Foreign Service Act of 11 1979"; 12 (2) in section 5(h)- 13 (A) strike out "section 1091 of the Foreign 14 Service Act of 1946" and insert in lieu thereof 15 "section 31 of the Act entitled `An Act to provide 16 certain basic authority for the Department of 17 State', approved August 1, 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2684 18 et seq.)"; and 19 (B) strike out "Director of Action" and 20 insert in lieu thereof "President"; 21 (3) in section 7(a)(1)- 22 (A) strike out "the Foreign Service Reserve 23 and Staff under the Foreign Service Act of 1946, 24 as amended (22 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)" and insert Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 170 169 1 in lieu thereof "the Foreign Service under the 2 Foreign Service Act of 1979"; 3 (B) strike out "section 528" and insert in 4 lieu thereof "section 332"; 5 (C) strike out the word "Reserve" the last 6 place it appears and all that follows and insert in 7 lieu thereof a period; 8 (4) section 7(a)(2) is amended to read as follows: 9 "(2) The President may utilize such authority contained 10 in the Foreign Service Act of 1979 relating to members of 11 the Foreign Service and other United States Government of- 12 ficers and employees as the President deems necessary to 13 carry out functions under this Act, except that- 14. "(A) no Foreign Service appointment or assign- 15 ment under this paragraph shall be for a period of 16 more than five years unless the Director of the Peace 17 Corps, under special circumstances, personally ap- 18 proves an extension of not more than one year on an 19 individual basis; and 20 "(B) no person whose Foreign Service appoint- 21 ment or assignment under this paragraph has been ter- 22 minated shall be reappointed or reassigned under this 23 paragraph before the expiration of a period of time 24 equal to that person's preceding tour of duty. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 170 1 Such provisions of that Act as the President deems appropri- 2 ate shall apply to persons appointed or assigned under this 3 paragraph, including in all cases, the provisions of section 4 332 of that Act: Provided, however, That the President may 5 by regulation make exceptions to the application of section 6 332 in cases in which the period of the appointment or as- 7 signment exceeds thirty months: Provided further, That 8 members of the Foreign Service appointed or assigned pursu- 9 ant to this paragraph shall receive within-class salary in- 10 creases in accordance with such regulations as the President 11 may prescribe: Provided further, That under such regulations 12 as the President may prescribe persons who are to perform 13 duties of a more routine nature than are generally performed 14 by members of the Foreign Service at the lowest class may 15 be appointed to an unenumerated class ranking below the 16 lowest class of the Foreign Service Schedule and be paid 17 basic compensation at rates lower than those of the lowest 18 class."; 19 (5) in section 14(b), strike out "section 901 of the 20 Foreign Service Act of 1946 (22 U.S.C. 1131)" and 21 insert in lieu thereof "section 931 of the Foreign Serv- 22 ice Act of 1979". 23 (b) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 24 2151 et seq.) is amended as follows: Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 172 171 1 (1) section 625(d)(1) (22 U.S.C. 2385(d)) is 2 amended to read as follows: 3 "(1) employ or assign persons, or authorize the 4 employment or assignment of officers or employees by 5 agencies of the United States Government, who shall 6 receive compensation at any of the rates provided for 7 under section 411 or section 421 of the Foreign Serv- 8 ice Act of 1979, together with allowances and benefits 9 under that Act; and persons so employed or assigned 10 shall be entitled, except to the extent that the Presi- 11 dent may specify otherwise in cases in which the 12 period of employment or assignment exceeds thirty 13 months, to the same benefits as are provided by section 14 332 of that Act for persons appointed to the Foreign 15 Service."; 16 (2) section 631(b) (22 U.S.C. 2391) is amended 17 by striking out the second sentence and inserting in 18 lieu thereof "Such chief shall be entitled to receive 19 such compensation and allowances as provided for in 20 the Foreign Service Act of 1979, not to exceed those 21 authorized for a chief of mission (within the meaning of 22 that Act), as the President shall determine to be appro- 23 priate."; 24 (3) section 631(c) is amended by striking out the 25 second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof "Such Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 173 172 1 person may receive such compensation and allowances 2 as are authorized by the Foreign Service Act, not to 3 exceed those authorized for a chief of mission (within 4 the meaning of that Act), as the President shall deter- 5 mine to be appropriate.". 6 (c) Section 42 of the Arms Control and Disarmament 7 Act (22 U.S.C. 2582) is amended to read as follows: 8 "FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL 9 "SEC. 42. (a) The Secretary of State may authorize the 10 Director to exercise, with respect to :embers of the Foreign 11 Service appointed or employed for the Agency the following authority: (1) the authority available to the Secretary of State under the Foreign Service Act of 1979, and (2) the authority available to the Secretary under any other provisions of law pertaining specifically or generally applicable to such members. "(b) Limited appointments of Foreign Service personnel 19 for the Agency may be extended or renewed, notwithstanding 20 section 331 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979, so long as 21 the service of the individual under such appointment does not 22 exceed ten consecutive years without a break in service of at 23 least one year.". Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 1 SEC. 2203. SALARY FOR AMBASSADORS AT LARGE.- 2 Section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 3 adding at the end thereof: 4 "(24) Ambassadors at Large.". 5 SEC. 2204. ATTORNEYS FEES IN BACKPAY CASES.- 6 Section 5596(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended- 7 (1) by amending paragraph (1)(A)(ii) by inserting 8 immediately after "chapter 71 of this title," the words "or under chapter 11 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979,"; (2) by amending paragraph (3)- (A) by inserting immediately after "section 7103 of this title" the, words "and (with respect to Foreign Service personnel) in sections 1002 and 1101 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979"; (B) by inserting immediately after "section 7116 of this title" the' words "and (with respect to Foreign Service personnel) in section 1031 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979". 21 SEC. 2205. LEAVE FOR SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE.- 22 Section 6304 of title 5, United States Code, is amended- 23 (1) in subsection (a) by striking out "and (f)" and 24 inserting in lieu thereof "(f), and (g)"; and Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 175 174 1 (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 2 subsection: 3 "(g) Annual leave accrued by a member of the Senior 4 Foreign Service shall not be subject to the limitation on accu- 5 mulation otherwise imposed by this section.". 6 CHAPTER 3-REPEALS 7 SEC. 2301. REPEALED PROVISIONS.-There are re- 8 pealed- 9 (1) the Foreign Service Act of 1946 (22 U.S.C. 10 801-817, 821, 822, 826, 827, 841-843, 846, 861, 11 866-873, 876, 877, 881, 882, 886, 889, 890, 896, 12 900-902, 906-915, 921-924, 926-932, 936-939, 13 946, 947, 951, 961-966, 968, 981, 986, 987, 14 991-996, 1001-1009, 1016, 1017, 1021, 1022, 15 1026-1028, 1031, 1036, 1037-1037c, 1041-1048, 16 1061-1065, 1071, 1076-1079s, 1081, 1082, 1084, 17 1086, 1091, 1093, 1095, 1101, 1103, 1106, 1111, 18 1112, 1116, 1121, 1131, 1136-1138a, 1139, 19 1148-1151, and 1156-1160); 20 (2) sections 401 and 413 of the Foreign Relations 21 Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979 (92 Stat. 981, 22 986); 23 (3) section 413 of the Foreign Relations Authori- 24 zation Act, Fiscal Year 1978 (91 Stat. 857); Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 175 1 (4) sections 117, 120, and 522 of the Foreign Re- 2 lations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1977 (90 Stat. 3 827, 829, 846); 4 (5) section 6 of the Department of State Appro- 5 priations Authorization Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 452); 6 (6) the Act entitled "An Act to promote the for- 7 eign policy of the United States by strengthening and 8 improving the Foreign Service personnel system of the 9 International Communication Agency through estab- 10 lishment of a Foreign Service Information Officer Corps, approved August 20, 1968 (22 U.S.C. 929-932, 1221-1232); (7) paragraph (2) of subsection (d) and subsections (e), (g), (j), and (k) of section 625 of the Foreign As- sistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2385 (d)(2), (e), (g), (j), and (k)), except that the effective date of the repeal of subsection (k) shall be January 1, 1982; (8) section 7(b) of the Peace Corps Act (22 U.S.C. 2506(b)); and (9) section 124(a)(2) of the International Develop- ment and Food Assistance Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 542). CHAPTER 4-SEVERABILITY, SAVING PROVISION, REPORTS, AND EFFECTIVE DATE SEC. 2401. SEVERABILITY.-If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 177 176 1 is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application 2 of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall 10 3 not be affected thereby. 4 SEC. 2402. SAVING PROVISION.-All determinations, 5 authorizations, regulations, orders, agreements, exclusive 6 recognition of an organization or other actions made, issued, 7 undertaken, entered into or taken under the authority of the 8 Foreign Service Act of 1946 or any other law repealed, 9 modified, or affected by this Act shall continue in full force 10 and effect until modified, revoked, or superseded by appropri- 11 ate authority. Any grievances, claims, or appeals which were 12 filed or made under any such law and are pending resolution 13 on the effective date of this Act shall continue to be governed 14 by the "provisions repealed, modified, or affected by this Act. 15 References in law to provisions of the Foreign Service Act of 16 1946 or other law superseded by this Act shall be deemed to 17 include reference to the corresponding provisions of this Act. 18 SEC. 2403. REPORTS.-Not later than eighteen months 19 after the effective date of this Act, the Secretary of State 10 20 shall submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 21 and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a 22 report describing the steps taken in furtherance of this Act's 23 objective (as set out in sections 101(b)(9) and 1203 of the 24 Foreign Service Act of 1979) of achieving maximum com- 25 patibility among the agencies utilizing the Foreign Service Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 178 177 1 personnel system and including such recommendations as the 2 Secretary believes will assist in achieving that objective. The 3 Secretary shall keep the Congress informed on a continuing 4 basis on progress made in pursuit of the goal of maximum 5 compatibility. 6 SEC. 2404. EFFECTIVE DATE.-This Act shall take 7 effect on January 1, 1980. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Senator PEIL. The witnesses today will highlight the major features of this bill, and there will be further hearings to examine more fully all facets of this legislation and to allow the various employee unions an opportunity to comment on its provisions. In this regard, I recall this work being started in the previous ad- ministration by Larry Eagleberger and Carol Laise. I think the broad outlines set forth then are being fine-tuned and improved, and will be the first overall change of this sort that has been made since the Foreign Service Act of 1946, of which we all had great hopes but which was never really fully implemented. We are very honored that our first witness today is the Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, who is accompanied by the Deputy Under Secre- tary of State, Ben Read. STATEMENT OF HON. CYRUS R. VANCE, SECRETARY OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY BEN H. READ, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MANAGEMENT Secretary VANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, may I say how much I appreciate your early scheduling of these hearings on the proposed new Foreign Service Act to which we, and I personally, attach great importance. Senator PELL. I must apologize; it was my amendment that changed your title from Deputy Under Secretary to Under Secretary. Excuse me, Mr. Vance. Secretary VANCE. Not at all. No one has a more profound appreciation of the necessity for a vital Foreign Service, and no one has a deeper personal obligation than I to maintain its vitality. From my tenure as Secretary of State and earlier Government experience, I know the country and its leaders depend upon a strong and a vigorous Foreign Service. And I believe a strong Foreign Service needs this act. ROGERS ACT OF 1924, FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 194.6 The Rogers Act of 1924 which created the modern Foreign Service, and the Foreign Service Act of 1946, to which the chairman just re- ferred, which established its present form, were landmarks in their present time. They served us well. The 1946 Act created the personnel system which now supplies three-fourths of our ambassadors. This ad- . ministration, as have all administrations since World War II, de- pends on it for the people who represent our international interests- from the most sensitive missions down to the simplest, yet essential, day-to-day tasks. But times have changed since 1946. We must be sensitive to the shifts which have taken place in the environment that affect the For- eign Service career, and we must look ahead to the challenges of our Foreign Service, the challenges they will face in the future. Diplomacy has always been a risky trade. From the days of Ben- jamin Franklin and the Committees of Correspondence, our diplomats Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 have quite literally risked their lives in the service of their country. At no time since 1946 has service been more difficult than it is in so many posts today, or as dangerous-as the senseless deaths of able officers in the last few tragically demonstrate. The 1946 Act gave us a Foreign Service that answered the demands of the day. But today's circumstances are significantly changed. The num- ber of independent governments has more than doubled during that period, and the range of multilateral institutions and efforts in which we are engaged has grown enormously. Our international commerce has vastly expanded and the international dimension of economic issues has become increasingly central. Major new areas of concern, such as nuclear nonproliferation, narcotics control, environmental pro- tection, and science and technology have emerged. And new emphasis has been given to traditional concerns of American foreign policy, such consular services. The Foreign Service has had to respond to these increasing demands with roughly the same number of people as it had 20 years ago. At the same time, personnel management is influenced now in ways that were hardly foreseen in 1946. Formal employee-management rela- tionships only emerged in the State Department within the last 10 years. A change has also taken place in the perceived advantages of overseas service. The quality of life in many foreign capitals has de- teriorated while the threat to personal safety has increased. The de- clining value of the dollar and high inflation in many nations have made our task more difficult. Moreover, with a growing number of families in which both spouses are pursuing professional careers, there is understandable increasing family reluctance to leave the United States for foreign posts. All of these foreign developments underscore the obvious fact that the Foreign Service is confronted by dramatically different circum- stances than prevailed a third of a century ago. The Service must adapt to these new conditions if it is to meet new responsibilities, now and in the years ahead. And yet, the structure of the Service has not kept pace. Obsolete, cumbersome, and frequently anomalous organiza- tional arrangements and personnel distinctions have tended to sap its traditional strength and hinder its performance. We need a personnel system which takes account of new realities. We need the discipline and the incentives that will preserve, strengthen, and prepare our Foreign Service for the complex chal- lenges ahead. The Civil Service Reform Act passed by the Congress last year strengthens and modernizes the conditions of employment as well as the management efficiency of the Civil Service in all departments and agencies, including the Department of State and the foreign affairs agencies. In recognition of the fundamentally different mission and conditions of the Foreign Service, however, it was exempted from many of the basic provisions of that act. This has given us a rare opportunity to draw from the features of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act where they are adaptable to the unique requirements of the Foreign Service. as the advancement of human rights. Americans are traveling abroad in record numbers, with a commensurate increase in the demands for Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 181 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO IMPROVE, SIMPLIFY PERSONNEL ARRANGEMENTS The bill we are proposing for your consideration today is directly responsive to a 1976 congressional request initiated by you, Mr. Chair- man, calling on the Department to submit a "comprehensive plan" to improve and simplify our personnel arrangements. The proposal represents 3 years of studies, suspended only during congressional consideration of the Civil Service legislation last year, but resumed and intensified during the last 7 months. It represents extensive con- sultation within the executive branch and with interested members and staff on the Hill. I have devoted many hours to this process and am confident that we are submitting a bill which will substantially strengthen the Foreign Service. Let me summarize the major features of the bill. First and foremost, it links the granting of career tenure, promo- tions, compensation and performance pay, as well as retention in the Service more closely to the quality of performance. The bill would require all persons seeking career status to pass a rigorous testing process before being awarded such status. It restores an effective "up or out" policy essential to attracting and keeping the most qualified people and assuring them the opportunity to move through the ranks at a.-rate which reflects their ability. Some procedures, such as selection out for substandard performance, would be applicable for the first time to all Foreign Service person- nel, from the highest to the lowest ranks. Other procedures, such as limited career extensions for persons at the highest ranks of their occupational categories, are new. They would be administered on the recommendations of annual selection boards and would provide greater flexibility in assuring that the Service re- tains the ablest people and the essential skills it needs. Present voluntary and mandatory retirement features, both essential for an effective Service, are retained without change. The bill would create a new Senior Foreign Service, with rigorous new entry criteria for the highest three ranks. Membership in the Senior Foreign Service would involve greater benefits and risks based on performance. With adaptations, the incentive provisions are modeled on the Senior Executive Service provisions of the 1978 law. Second, the bill recognizes the clear distinction between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. It clearly limits Foreign Service career status only to those people who accept the discipline of service overseas. Today, there are several hunderd members of the Foreign Service in the Department alone who have entered the Service without any real expectation that they would have to serve abroad, and who have not served abroad. The bill would convert these persons to Civil Service or Senior Executive Service status, with pay and benefits preserved. Third, it improves the management and efficiency of the Service by reducing the number of personnel categories from more than a dozen to two. There would be a single pay scale for both. In general, our per- sonnel laws would be consolidated, rationalized, and codified to meet current demand. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Fourth, it places employee-management relations on a firmer and a more equitable statutory basis, establishing a new Foreign Service Labor Relations Board and a Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel. Fifth, it would underscore our commitment to mitigating the special hardships and strains on Foreign Service families, and ad- vancing equal employment opportunity and fair and equitable treat- ment for all without regard to race, national origin, sex, handicap, or other such considerations. Sixth, it would improve the economy and efficiency of government by promoting maximum compatibility and interchange among the agencies authorized to use Foreign Service personnel. It would also foster greater compatibility between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. There are many other features of this bill, Mr. Chairman, which will be described in more detail by others who follow me, including USICA [International Communication Agency] Director Reinhardt, Acting AID [Agency for International Development] Director Nooter, and Director of OPM [Office of Personnel Management], Scotty Campbell. The Mission of the Foreign Service, in the years ahead will be complex and difficult. It will face great demands, both physical and emotional. But freed by this new proposed charter from the organiza- tional obstacles to which I have alluded, I am confident that it will be able to do its essential work for the Nation with distinction, for the vast majority of its members at all levels are people of uncommon profes- sional ability, experience, and dedication. I know you share my view that the country needs a strong Foreign Service. I believe that when you have completed your examination of this proposed legislation you will share my view that a strong Foreign Service needs this act. Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for your state- ment. Also, I recognize and have high regard for the interest you have taken in this project yourself. It is not a very "sexy" issue, as shown by the fact that usui.;ly the press corps are quite multitudinous when you appear before a congressional committee, and we have exactly one occupant at the press table here. But it is a highly significant piece of legislation, and I think that it can have a very real effect on the conduct of our diplomacy and the status of our country in the world in the years to come. Secretary VANCE. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a point on that? Senator PELL. Please. Secretary VANCE. I wholeheartedly share what you have just said. This is a matter of, I think, great importance to the Foreign Service and to its effectiveness in the years that lie ahead. I think it is also a matter of great urgency. I think it is a matter that needs attention at this time and prompt action by the Congress. So, I repeat as I did at the outset of my statement, my thanks for the willingness of this committee to schedule this early hearing so that we can get on with the business of reviewing this bill and enacting it into law. Senator PELL. Thank you. Speaking personally, it is of particular interest because my father passed the old diplomatic exam and I was Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 in the Foreign Service myself some years back. So, I am really per- sonally very interested in this project as well, and as you pointed out, it is in the national interest. I thought you touched on one very important point, and that is that careers in the Foreign Service involve danger. I think it is a fact that is lost sight of except in time of war when the military or the civilian population suffers; but in time of peace there is no more dangerous situation than the Foreign Service. You and I have both discussed in the past the fact that four of our chiefs of mission in a certain part of the world were killed, and this continues to go on. So, they need cer- tain incentives, rewards, and a different spirit-with all respect to Mr. Campbell who will be following you-from the Civil Service. The Civil Service is, I think, more of a "nine-to-five" approach except in its higher regions when they are, Lord knows, exceptionally conscientious. FOREIGN SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE COMPARABILITY When you talk about greater comparability to civil service, I think that is perhaps the wrong line, it ought to have a greater comparability with the military service where you have promotion and selection out; where you have the element of danger; where you have the discipline and the free assignments. I would have thought your thinking would be more in that direction rather than making it more comparable with the civil service. Secretary VANCE. I think it is clearly comparable in many ways to the military because of the overseas service; because of the risks and hardships that are incurred by our personnel serving overseas and their families, including wives and children, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. However, I think that there are many who during their tours of duty obviously are going to be serving at home in the United States, and where there can be comparability, then we should have comparable treatment and we should have comparable pay. That is one of the reasons I believe we should have performance pay in connection with the Senior Foreign Service, which I know is a subject you will want to discuss with me. Senator PELL. You are right,, that is one point of difference in view, very much the same view that made me feel that young officers should not have differences in pay. Just like in the military service, you do not pay extra to the watch officer when he cons the ship at night; nor do I think that you would pay more for Senior Foreign Service offi- cers. That is like saying that a brigadier general, or major general, gets more money when he does a good job, less if he does 'a bad job, rather than keeping the incentives of "motion up," retention, or selection out, which really are adequate stimuli, I would have thought. Why is it that you feel those stimuli are not adequate? Secretary VANCE. As all of us know, last year the Congress over- whelmingly decided during its consideration of the Civil Service Re- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 form Act that it was appropriate for senior career officials of the Government to have the opportunity to earn pay which was more like that of individuals in the private sector, with comparable responsi- bilities. This additional compensation, it was decided, should not be automatic; it should be awarded only to those performing at the higher level. Now, these two principles were applied and the principle of per- formance pay has been enacted into law for the Senior Executive Service. I believe that it is right and appropriate that the people in the Senior Foreign Service should have similar treatment and similar compensa- tion. I think it is correct when there is outstanding performance that people should be compensated for outstanding performance as they are in private life. I think it is also important from the standpoint of the Foreign Service. They should not find themselves in a category where they are being compensated at a rate less than their colleagues in the civil service who are working at home. Senator PELL. Have you ever discussed that thought with Secretary of Defense Brown that under exactly the same analogy perhaps the four-star general who has a responsibility that is really tremendous from a managerial viewpoint, or a two-star general, doing his job well, should get more money than one who does it badly? I do not see the difference. Secretary VANCE. I think that the principle is a sound principle. I think the principle of rewarding people for good performance is a sound one. I do not see any reason why that should not apply to the military as well as this case. Senator PELL. But do you not think that the incentives I mentioned, the possibility of a command, or a job, retention in the service or selec- .tion out, that those are pretty strong stimuli right there? Secretary VANCE. They are stimuli, I would not disagree on that. However, I think in the modern world with the costs which are en- tailed in raising a family-whether it be in the United States or over- seas-that it is important that the principle of compensation for per- formance should apply, as well as the other stimuli which we already know exist. Senator PELL. I do not want to overburden this dialog, but I think there is another difference here. There is no promotion, really, in the civil service because you get to higher rank only by changing a job, which is just the opposite from the military and the Foreign Service concept where the rank goes with the individual. Therefore, for ex- ample, a GS-16 ought to get performance pay if he really does an extra good job since he cannot get to a GS-17 slot except by changing jobs. I think there is a very real difference in this regard. What would be your reaction to that thought? Secretary VANCE. I look at this thing in a very practical way. My judgement is, unless you provide performance pay, you are going to find that the Senior Foreign Service will not be compensated at the same level as those in the civil service. Therefore, I feel that it is es- sential that we put this in law on a comparable basis so that we can as- sure that the people in the Foreign Service are going to receive the same kind of compensation in terms of amounts, which is possible under the civil service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 185 FOREIGN SERVICE/CIVIL SERVICE COMPARABILITY Senator PELL. I guess our point of difference is, you come back to the idea that there should be comparability with the civil service, and I think the less comparability'the better, it should be comparable with the military service. Secretary VANCE. It is required by law. Senator PELL. In what way, sir? Secretary VANCE. The Pay Act of 1962. Senator PELL. That would apply to military service, too, then; would it not? Secretary VANCE. I do not know whether it applies to the military or not. Senator PELL. If it applies to the Foreign Service, I would imagine it applies to the military service as well. Secretary VANCE. I do not know. Scotty could perhaps answer that. Senator PELL. What is the answer? Mr. CAMPBELL. There is a simple tie between the military and civil service pay under which the former are adjusted by the same overall percent as the latter. Senator PELL. Under the same theory, then, should we have major generals get different pays, depending on how well they do their jobs? Mr. CAMPBELL. As far as I am concerned, the use of bonus pay for performance could well apply in the military. I do not know Sec- retary Brown's views, but Secretary Brown very strongly supported the Civil Service Reform Act and the use of performance pay. Senator PELL. I do not want to take too much of the Secretary's time on this point. I think except for this one feature, much of the rest of the bill is altogether excellent. PROMOTION/SELECTION OUT PROCESS Another question that came up the other day is that if you have what I might call the noncommissioned officers, the support staff, the secretary who has been in for 10 years and is not being promoted up within the time frame, would she be compelled to retire, or is there a grandfather clause in the bill to take care of situations such as this? Secretary VANCE. With respect only to selection-out for relative performance, after 5 years they will be treated in a similar fashion to others. My recollection is, as* a result of our consultations on this, we have found that the majority would agree that this is something they could support. Senator PELL. But for 5 years the grandfather clause would apply?, Secretary VANCE. Yes. Senator PELL. I have come across secretaries who spoke vigorously on this subject. What will be the long-term cost of the bill to the Government, com- paratively speaking? Secretary VANCE. There will be very slight no additional cost di- rectly resulting from the passage of the bill. However, if we move to performance pay-which I hope very strongly we will-at that time Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 there obviously would, in my judgment, be additional costs. I cannot give you an estimate at this time as to what they would be, this would have to be taken care of in connection with the annual budgetary process. Therefore, it would be only a guess on my part. I might point out that the passage of the bill will not result in any automatic promotions or deirnotions, and that the pay comparability study which was mandated by the Congress, and which has been just com- pleted and submitted to you, I believe, on June 20, will be imple- mented separately. Its cost will be part of the regular authorization and appropriation process. On that t might just mention that you have the results of the study by Hay Associates which, again, I think, came about as a result of a request that you made, Mr. Chairman. It is a very interesting study. It is also being reviewed within the executive branch at this time by a group consisting of the interested agencies and elements within the Government. We hope to complete our review of that study by the end of August, and hope by that time to have an administration position which we would submit to you, reflecting the views of the administration, based upon that study and its inter- relationship to pay scales. Senator PELL. As you know, I believe very strongly that our For- eign Service officers should be compensated at as high a rate as pos- sible, and that would not worry me at all. I particularly believe the junior ones should, with the responsibilities they have. I guess where we part company is whether you would have the incentive pay in addition to the possibilities of promotion. Secretary VANCE. Let me say on that, I took a look during the process of my study and review of the bill as it developed on whether or not we should seek to have incentive or merit pay at the lower levels as well. I concluded that would be a mistake because it would be very hard to administer at that level. Indeed, I think it might end up with a sort of negative effect because if the Congress saw at that level that there was incentive or merit pay available, they might not give the necessary authorizations for cost-of-living increases, and employees might end up, on balance, worse off than otherwise. I do not think the same thing applies at the three senior grades which would be contained in the Senior Foreign Service. Senator PELL. I think it was Napoleon who once said that a man will give up his life for a piece of little red ribbon. I thought that incentives were along those lines, the awards and medals that you give. 1 do not think that a really dedicated Foreign Service officer is going to do a better job or a worse job if he gets more money for it. I think it is almost demeaning to him in that position. That is where we differ. Secretary VANCE. We really do part. I really do not think it is demeaning, Mr. Chairman. I think that it is important to reward superior performance, outstanding achievement by the medals and awards that are made. But I do not think that precludes giving ade- quate compensation to our people, which is comparable to what oth- ers, who are doing similar or even less demanding jobs, are getting. Senator PELL. I cannot imagine a more conscientious, hard-working and able Secretary of State than you are.. Yet, I question whether you Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 would do a better job if you got a little more pay than one of your colleagues in the Cabinet. Secretary VANCE. I am not suggesting it for Cabinet officers. Senator PELL. All right. Senator Lugar? Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I would add my appreciation to that which the chair- man has already expressed for your appearance here this morning. I think this is a tremendously important bill and it highlights an im- portant role for a Secretary of State. Most of your appearances here and elsewhere are about major issues involving our international rela- tions, and that is the essence of your job in many ways; but from my limited visits to embassies abroad and visits with the Foreign Service personnel I know how important it is to each one of them-not only our Ambassadors but the rank and file-to know of your personnel in- terest in their careers. It is tremendously important to them. On the trip I took with Secretary Blumenthal to the Middle East last year we had occasion to visit some relatively embattled positions with the people who are, if not risking their lives-and they certainly were in Iran when we were there in November-are at least located in some- what remote places where families have very great difficulty in com- ing and going. They are, I think, good examples of some of the people you described in your testimony today. This Service is interesting and exciting, but it is sacrificial in many ways. On those frontiers we ought to be* well represented. We need to have quality people who are genuinely excited about Foreign Service, as opposed to persons-whether they are in the Navy or in the Foreign Service-who really would prefer "shore duty" permanently. From conversation with the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] the other evening, I learned that in the Navy the problems of recruitment are clearly the two you pointed to today, compensation and the prob- lem of "shore duty" as opposed to sea duty. American life has evolved in ways in which a higher material standard of living is desired. I do not want to denigrate the motives of Foreign Service officers, but failure to take heed of this, it seems to me, is courting disaster. PERFORMANCE PAY IMPLEMENTATION I agree enthusiastically with your idea of performance pay, particu- larly for those who have considerable responsibility. I think it is a courageous thing to implement. Clearly, in the whole realm of public life, whether it be schoolteachers or fire or police service or the Foreign Service, the trend has been down for a long time. They have been sort of lost in the herd. Now, it seems to me, this legislation offers a?chance for a break- through. The Foreign Service is made up of first-class personnel at- tained through both recruitment and the screening out process. They deserve to be paid better. t think they ought to be paid very well. If the right people are there, they will make money and good will for our country many times over. This is an aggressive posture that I think is exciting. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 188 FOREIGN SERVICE VIEWS CONCERNING LEGISLATION What I ask you-and you have touched upon this briefly-is what is the general feeling in the Foreign Service when members take a look at this legislation? Is this going to have a boost for morale for those that are presently there, quite apart from the ones that will be coming along? What sort of comment can you make about that? Secretary VANCE. Thank you very much, Senator. I would welcome the opportunity to respond to that question. First, let me say that there is a broad consensus in favor of many of the principles that are contained in the bill. First is the affirmation of the essential role of the Foreign Service. Second, the provisions which provide for conversion to civil service status of Foreign Service personnel obligated and needed only for domestic service. Third, the principles which are involved in the statutory employee- management relation which are contained in this bill. Fourth, the single Foreign Service pay scale. Fifth, the consolidation of multiple Foreign Service personnel cate gories and subcategories from the many that exist now, into two. Sixth, the new procedures to assure "up or out" principles which make attrition and promotion more predictable and reliable, and link promotion and retention more closely to performance. On all of those there is a broad consensus. There are differences with respect to other aspects of the bill. I am pleased that as people learn more about the bill, as we are able to discuss the-bill now that we have it completed and out on the table with the people in the Foreign Serv- ice, both at home and abroad, there is an increasing enthusiasm for the bill. That is not saying that everybody agrees with all the provisions of the bill because they do not. You will hear from some of those who will be coming before you of provisions that they would like to see changed. I think it is important to note that the Board of Foreign Service has endorsed the bill. On the 20th of June it adopted a statement as- serting, "The Board believes that the bill represents a well-considered effort to meet existing anomalies in the present Foreign Service person- nel structure and should be supported." That is a broadly based group. I think that their support and endorsement is important. As to the other elements of the Foreign Service community, I think they really. should speak for themselves. You will hear from John Reinhardt and Bob Nooter who will be following on after me; they can tell you the views of themselves and their agencies with respect to the bill. I think it is fair to say that they generally endorse the bill, but, they have spoken and will speak for themselves. SAFEGUARDS FOR "RISK TAKERS" Senator LUGAR. Mr. Secretary, in making these evaluations-and I suppose this is always one of the difficulties of a merit pay system, even in the best of all worlds-the people who make these evaluations must be fair-minded and make the right sort of choice. What sort of "fall- back position" is there to protect and to promote people who are con- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 spicuous in their work in various countries? These people might be called in the business world "risk takers," people who are self-starters and who have a great deal of initiative. I do not mean by this that they are busy taking policy into their own hands or that they are serving as alternate Secretaries of State or preempting the Congress, but that they are really "live-wire" people who make a big difference in how this country's mission is accomplished. Such people frequently engender opposition. Such is the nature of this kind of person. In fact, they may become controversial and at the very time we are attempting to get a merit pay system in the For- eign Service, they become known as people who rock the boat and cause trouble. What sorts of safeguards are there for the system so that these sorts of people in fact are rewarded? Is there some type of review by the Secretary, or if not by you, by someone in the system who says, "Now, let us take a look at this, Mr. X or Mrs. X in that situation really is somebody who is doing a good job. I appreciate all the rumbles and the ripples that are coming along here, but at the same time, let us take another look at it." Can you make any broad comments to this sort of general question? Secretary VANCE. Let me say first of all, I believe it is very im- portant that we have people who are, as you described them, risk tak- ers : people who are willing to come forward and put their neck out on the line by making suggestions which are innovative and which may contain elements of risk, but should be surfaced and should be consid- ered by those at higher levels, as well as those on the ground where these people are actually working. I think it is important that it be known that is encouraged. I think that performance pay is something which can be used to give a signal that this is the kind of thing we are looking for, that capable people who are willing to take risks will be rewarded. Second, getting down to the more nitty-gritty level of this there are dissent channels which people can use if they feel that they are being stifled in their efforts to come forward with ideas which are being blocked. Certainly, as far as the Selection Boards are concerned, we make very clear to them that this kind of initiative is not to be penal- ized, it is to be looked at which favor rather than in a negative way. I certainly try to make it clear in my dealings with my colleagues in the Department that this is the kind of thing I welcome and en- courage. I hope, to an increasing extent, this will be understood and become known throughout the Department. Ben, do you want to add anything? Mr. READ. No. The essential protection is the selection boards, Sena- tor Lugar, and they are completely independent of management. The precepts which they' follow are very carefully structured, and are based ,on dialog between management and the labor representatives. The precepts instruct the Selection Boards to reward initiative; reward leadership ; reward the qualities that you have well defined. We have no sense that the Boards do otherwise in practice. Secretary VANCE. I might go back. I faced the same question when I was working in the Defense Department, when I was Secretary of the Army. I remember the best way that I could get at it was to make this clear in the precept to the selection boards. I would often bring Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 190 in the selection boards and talk to them, and convey to them my strong feelings that this kind of initiative was something to be welcomed, rather than be frowned upon. I found that it worked-not always, but it did have a beneficial effect. ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS Senator LUGAR. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Secretary. Clearly, the problems of the Foreign Service officer grow, as they do for each person in public service, whether in the executive or legislative branch, in terms of subject matter areas for which we are responsible, even though this may not be our area of talent. One of the problems that I have noted as a member of the Agricul- ture Committee, for example, is that there have been considerable prob- lems at various levels in our Embassies in understanding, agriculture problems, both from the standpoint of marketing our products and opening up new channels in which production occurs in various coun- tries. In the past this may have been consigned to something that agri- culture people do, as opposed to'real politics and the problems of state that other people do. I think now we all see that these things are closely intertwined : food and nutrition issues, population issues and a whole realm of technical and scientific issues are important for statecraft. How can the entry situation be structured in such a way that there are not impossible requirements to qualify, but that it very clearly is inculcated that Foreign Service officers need to be broad gaged and sensitive to implementing the foreign agricultural acts that we have been passing in recent years. Secretary VANCE. I would like to ask Ben Read to answer that ini- tially, and then I might want to add a word. Mr. READ. The economic and commercial officers in the Foreign Service, Senator Lugar, are sensitized to the agricultural opportuni- ties in a variety of ways in their training, in the directives they receive from the Department, and by the fact that, in the major" embassies, they work with foreign agricultural service specialists from the De- partment of Agriculture who are very much part of the country mission, country team. As you know, this last year the Congress passed the Agricultural Trade Act, and in year one of that act we are in the process of setting up six agricultural trade offices which will be integrated with our missions abroad and which I hope will lead to an even stronger enipliasis of integration of effort along the lines you suggested. Senator LUGAR. Did you have something to add,. Mr. Secretary? Secretary VANCE. No. INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL INTEGRATION INTO OVERSEAS PROGRAMS Senator LUGAR. Finally, I have one more question, and it relates to my view that we must -do better with regard to intelligence personnel and their integration into our overseas programs. Now, this will not be solved this morning or even in this act, but there are very real problems. I know from visits to Embassies-I have tried to be interested in several sorts of issues at one time-how strained and how difficult the intelligence role can become, and how Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 vulnerable on occasion, I think, our intelligence. people may be due to lack of sensitivity or simply because the'rules do not allow sensitivity. While we are taking a look at setting up new ways of classification, Fesprit de corps, and all this, I would think it a shame if we reinforced this longstanding problem because we assumed it was insoluble. For our national. interest we really need to do so a great deal better. I wonder if you have any comment on that. Secretary VANCE. Yes ; I do have some comment. I have from the outset been working with my colleagues in other branches of the Government on how to integrate better the intelligence functions and their relationship to the work of the Ambassador as the mission head in a given country. I have worked very closely with Stan Turner to try and improve the relationships between the Department of State and others involved on intelligence matters. I think we are, making some progress. I watched this very closely over the last year and a half or so, and I think if you would ask them,-you would get the same answer that I have given. Second,.I think it is very important that we continue to strive to increase.the quality of our political reporting which is of vital im- portance'to us back here in making judgments as to actions to take in connection with the activities that are reported to us from the field. We have embarked on a number of actions to strengthen the political reporting, including adding additional persons in certain missions where it is 'important to strengthen that organization in that particular post; where the task becomes too difficult, to bring in addi- tional people; to send in people to work with them and help in develop- ing better quality in the reporting from a particular post. As a result of it, again; I think I see progress in the product that is beginning to come out. We have to keep working at it. It is a con- tinuing task that we all have, but I think it is one which we clearly recognize and give high'attention to. Senator LuGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. SUPPORT FOR` S. 1450 Mr. Chairman..I appreciate this. chance of dialog with the Secre- tary and your calling this hearing; and likewise-although I will not be able to stay for his testimony-seeing Scottie Campbell here who has, I think, accomplished so much in the whole civil service reform. I just would want to be associated with you and with others, I am certain, on the committee, who will advocate this legislation and try to push it along. Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, Senator. Going back for a second to this question of pay. I want the record to show clearly that I support and recognize the fact that pay is a ? very strong incentive, but where we part company is that I think the incentive should be promotion, and that now you reach a situation where a class II officer may be receiving just about the same amount of money as a class I officer. I think that is wrong. I will do anything I can to try to change that. Where we differ is to say that within the class itself one should pick and choose. I think when you are in a very highly responsible job, you are at the top of the Foreign Service, top of the heap, then the incen- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 tive is to be promoted which you still can be, and leave your name in history. This is a subject we can talk about later. Except for this, I am in general support of this legislation. I congratulate you and thank you for all the hard work you have put into this, Mr. Secretary. Secretary VANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator FELL. Thank you. Our next witness will be Mr. Campbell, Director of the Office of Personnel Management. Mr. Campbell, we welcome you here, and I join in saying what an excellent job you have done and are doing in your tough assignment. We look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN B. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have a brief formal statement that I would like to make, and then I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. OPM INTEREST, ACTIVITIES RELATING TO FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL SYSTEM The Office of Personnel Management's interest and activities in rela- tion to the Foreign Service personnel system are substantial. Through Executive Order 11434, we have significant responsibilities for advis- ing the Secretary of State and the Director of the ICA. In addition, we are represented on the Board of the Foreign Service and the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service. These contacts have meant that the staff of the Civil Service Commission, now the Office of Personnel Management [OPM], participated in'the earliest formative stages of the plan to reorganize the State Department's personnel system. OPM has been consulted frequently in the final stages of development. We have provided comments and assistance to those working on the plan, and we believe the proposed legislation before you represents not only significant change but a major step forward for the Foreign Service. FOREIGN SERVICE/CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT COMPARABILITY 'The Foreign Service Act of 1979, in many respects-and we believe appropriately-parallels the Civil Service Reform Act. Certainly the impact on the Service will be comparable to the impact that the Civil Service Reform Act is having and will have on the civil service. Those who have preceded me today, the Secretary of State, and those who will follow, have and will provide some details. I will concen- trate, therefore, on those features that we are particularly pleased to see in this proposal and on those about which we have some questions. NEED FOR CONTINUING, STABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMPONENT First, the Department of State, AID, and ICA have recognized the need for a continuing and stable civil service component. The eventual savings, which will be brought about by clearly distinguishing between Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 employees whose duties do not include overseas service and those whose duties do require it, will be significant. The Foreign Service personnel system is designed to give flexibili- ties and benefits to a worldwide Service requiring mobility and hard- ship assignments and, as such, has a unique and important place in the array of Federal personnel systems. The attempt to adapt that system to jobs that did not carry the same requirements produced both diffi- culties and inequities. The proposed legislation requires conversion of employees who do not serve overseas and allows a painless transition by providing for no loss in pay or benefits as a result of conversion. We give our full support to the Department in its wish to make a clean start and support the Department in seeking authority to allow retention of Foreign Service benefits for those converted to the civil service. SECTION 2104 (b) CLARIFICATION We believe an addition should be made to section 2104(b) to clarify that the retention of coverage under the Foreign Service retirement system shall not extend to employees after transfer to another agency. We recognize that this was open to interpretation after the bill cleared the executive branch. However, without this limitation, those converted would be advantaged over those who had not converted by being able to transfer to a nonforeign affairs agency while staying in the Foreign Service retirement system. The Foreign Service was specifically excluded from the Senior Ex- ecutive Service in the Civil Service Reform Act. We therefore warmly endorse the Department's proposal to establish a Senior Foreign Serv- ice which has many features that parallel those of the Senior Execu- tive Service. We particularly note that the Senior Foreign Service proposal will hold members accountable for their performance, and reward those whose performance is outstanding. We recognize that there are special conditions that affect personnel who have to serve overseas, and that therefore it may not be practical to establish a Senior Foreign Service fully comparable to the Senior Executive Service which, incidentally, became operational on July 13. We see the two systems as complementary, however, and as being able to work together. There is a strong emphasis in the bill on the improvement of inter- agency coordination, as for example through greater consultation among the foreign affairs agencies. We have long recognized a need for closer ties between the personnel regulations of the foreign affairs agencies. We have noted differences in the approaches between agen- cies that are both justified and unjustified. We therefore view it as a major goal to bring the personnel policies of the various foreign serv- ice agencies into closer conformity so that neither management nor the members of the Service will be disadvantaged by the existence of unwarranted differences. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Bringing compatibility to the personnel systems of the three foreign aff airs agencies is one of the most important advisory roles of the Board of the Foreign Service, which will be established in statute with representation by the Office of Personnel Management. The Board of Foreign Service has worked toward this end on many occasions in the past. The Board allows executive line management to influence per- sonnel policy and, thus, is in step with the objectives of civil service reform. Having touched on these points where we are in complete agree- ment, I should note that we have had some concern about the inclusion of supervisors in the collective bargaining unit. In this sense title X differs from title. VII of the Civil Service Reform Act, which states that a unit does not appropriately include-with a few exceptions- any management officials or supervisors. We have generally thought it inappropriate to have any managers or supervisors within the bar- gaining unit. I recognize, however, that there are historical differences in the Foreign Service situation that the Congress may wish to take into account. I simply would not want, action in this field to be re- garded as indicative of the Congress views on other Federal personnel systems where the exclusion of managers from bargaining units its a well-established policy. EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS ABROAD Another problem that we have had with the proposal relates to the employment of family members abroad. The authority of the Sec- retary in section 333(c), to "prescribe regulations for the guidance of all agencies regarding the employment at posts aboard of family members of Government personnel" goes beyond the Foreign Service. We believe OPM should retain regulatory authority in this area for employment in agencies such as DOD [Department of Defense]. We realize that the sectional analysis states that these regulations shall be advisory and designed to set forth uniform standards and criteria. However, the draft language does not make clear that the regulations are "advisory," nor does it recognize the legitimate role of the Office of Personnel Management in regulating employment outside of the Foreign Service. At the July X17 hearing on the House side, Chairman Fascell of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations explained that this provision had been drafted by the subcommittee and it was not its intention to have the Department regulating other agencies. We have been assured that this language will be corrected in the House subcommittee. Section 701 (b) of the draft bill provides authority for functional training to family members in anticipation of their assignment abroad or while abroad. We read this authority as extending to family mem- bers of employees of non-Foreign Service agencies. We therefore en- dorse the provision with the understanding that family members of employees of all Federal agencies operating overseas will have access to available functional training in order to avoid favoring family Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 members of one agency over those of others. I have been assured by the State Department that they share my interpretation of this provision. OPM SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION I do wish to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation has my strong support. I think it will contribute materially to the conduct of foreign affairs while according proper consideration to the needs of employees. Its following of some of the basic principles of the Civil Service Reform Act is, of course, a matter of considerable satisfac- tion to those of us who worked on that. That completes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I stand .ready to answer any questions you may have. Senator PELL. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. SECTION 2104(b) CLARIFICATION In connection with your testimony I want to be sure I understand one point where you say, "We believe an addition should be made to section 2104(b) to clarify that the retention of coverage under the Foreign Service retirement system shall not extend to employees after transfer to another agency." Does that mean to another agency of the Government? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Senator PELL. In other words, to the Commerce Department. Mr. CAMPBELL. To non-foreign affairs agencies. Senator PELL. Not in the State Department. Mr. CAMPBELL. Not in the State Department, right. Senator PELL. Then, moving on, the provision in the paragraph you are talking about, the top of that page, should there not be one boss, even if people are working under another agency, under Agriculture or Interior? Should there not be one boss, the Ambassador, to set the rules? Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not have any problem with that if the person is assigned to work in the Embassy. Our concern here is about employees of the Defense Department, for example, who are serving overseas. We simply think it inappropriate that the State Department would make rules and regulations related to employees of other departments and agencies. This is a responsibility that the central personnel agency of the Federal Government has always had. Senator PELL. If for political reasons the Ambassador to, let us say, Hungary, did decide that he really did not want to see the wives of the Defense attaches getting a job in the local economy for one reason or another, or did not want them to be schoolteachers, something of that sort because of political reasons. In his judgment it would not be wise for the interest of the United States. Should he not have the right to tell the Defense attache, "I really would prefer it if your wife did not work in the local economy" ? Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, if the attache is responsible to the Ambassador then, indeed, the Ambassador would have that kind of control. Your example raises some difficulties in relation to affirmative action and equal employment opportunity, and the like. But, leaving that aside,, I am not talking about people who work in the Embassy, I am talking about people who work in other U.S. activities abroad. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 . Senator PELL. That is exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about a Defense attache's wife. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; but the Defense attache is in the Embassy and thereby works for the Ambassador. Senator PELL. All right, what about a Treasury Department employee? Mr. CAMPBELL. I think if you had a Treasury Department employee who was not working in the Embassy, who had some other assignment overseas, that the general rules and regulations for people serving overseas should apply to that person, rather than rules and regulations made by the State Department for State Department employees. Senator PELL. Would you give me an example of one or two cate- gories of employees you are thinking about? Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, the largest group and probably over 90 per- cent of those are civilians working for the Defense Department. Senator PELL. Do you not think that; for example, our Ambassador to Germany should be able to set the rules? That in a period of ten- sion he might decide that he does not want wives of Defense Depart- ment personnel working in the local economy? Mr. CAMPBELL. I would think that should be done only after con- sultation with the Secretary of Defense. Senator PELL. I see your point. I am. not sure I agree with you. I wanted to be sure I understood it. SHOULD THERE BE "PARACHUTE CLAUSE"? Now, do you think that there should be a so-called parachute clause similar to that contained in the Civil Service Reform Act for a person who fails to come up to the required standard in the Senior Executives Service, that he should be permitted to fall back? Mr. CAMPBELL. The Foreign Service system is a different one because of the "up or out" provisions. Senator PELL. Right. Mr. CAMPBELL. Therefore, it seems to me that the parachute system is less relevant to that kind of personnel system than it is to the regular civil service system. Senator PELL. So it should not have a parachute system? Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not want to answer that in a final way because there may be some situations where that did make sense, and quite frankly, I am not certain how the legislation deals with that. FOREIGN SERVICE, CIVIL SERVICE PAY COMPARABILITY Senator PELL. Do you think that Foreign Service officers in general are paid about on a comparable basis now with civil service? Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, there are points of tie between the General Schedule pay and the Foreign Service pay. The effort has been to try to make those ties at points of approximately equal responsibility and equal obligation. Whether those are correct at this time is a matter that is being considered in the task force the Secretary of State mentioned in terms of the study that has been done: of the pay levels of the For- eign Service. Until that group has reviewed that study and, as the Secretary of State said, until the administration has had an opportu- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 nity to reach a position on that, I am not prepared to say whether there ought to be some changes. I would point out that the Office of Personnel Management is very much involved with that task force, is a part of it, and we are trying very hard to make the system as fair and equitable as we can on both sides. We. do believe these needs to- continue to be a tie between the two pay systems. Senator PELL. You speak of obligations. How do you crank into your judgment the physical danger of assassination that does not affect the civil service? . Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I would; say only that, first, it does affect some members of the civil service, whether they are people involved in the protective services or the like. So, it is not a matter that is exclusively related to the Foreign :Service. I would, in addition, say that that factor obviously is taken.into account by those in the decision as to whether to join the Service or not. Obviously, you cannot put a.price on it. Senator PELL. For example, do not the Treasury Department, Secret Service, 'or FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] get a slightly higher salary because of the risk element in their job? Mr. CAMPBELL. They get privileges in relation to early retirement. But, in relationship to the risk involved, it is not a matter of special pay for that, except to the degree to which that matter is taken into very broad account in doing a position analysis. But, basically, for those protective services, .it is the -early retirement which is the privilege. . Senator PELL. In' connection with the upper level Foreign Service officers, if 'the performance pay was removed but you kept the rest -of the concept as fairly as you could there, what would be the impact of the legislation? What, in your view, would be the effect? Mr. CAMPBELL. If I understand the question, I think that it would considerably undermine one of the important elements in the legisla- tion in its emphasis throughout on performance; on performance as it relates to promotion, retention, and, in the case of the upper level, to the opportunity of earning bonuses. As you know, this matter was very carefully considered in the Civil Service Reform Act. I would point out in relation to the questions and comments you made in your dialog you had with the Secretary of State, that in fact the Senior Executive Service is not a position-based system now, but is a rank-in-person system and in that sense is like the Foreign Service and the military, rather than being like the old civil service system. It is our judgment that the opportunity of earning bonuses-and I would point out that they can be substantial, up to 20 percent of base salary, and there are in addition Presidential awards to which 5 per- cent may receive in any given year $10,000; 1 percent, $20,000. So, we are talking about what we believe to be appropriate awards for out- standing performance. Quite frankly, I do think that is more helpful to those in those top senior positions than receiving plaques or other Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 kinds of awards of that kind, which has been traditional practice in the public service. Senator PELL. Recalling our dialog on that same subject, you say you would advocate this for the military, too. Mr. CAMPBELL. I would have absolutely no problem: with it being used in the military. Obviously, I would want to go through the process of considering that and talking to the military people.to determine their views on it. But I see nothing inconsistent with military service and the opportunity of earning bonuses for outstanding performance. Senator PELL. If . this is the philosophy and the viewpoint of the administration, then it ought to be carried to its logical conclusion, which would be the Cabinet. Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, it does seem to me that you reach a point at the top of the system where the service itself and the distinction that goes with that service provides a nonmaterial reward. On the other hand, I would personally have no problem with a Presidential per- formance appraisal system that would indeed make judgments about quality of performance of those in the Cabinet. I must say that I think the alternative to bad performance should not be no bonus, but perhaps should be relief from responsibility. Senator PELL. Do you not think when you go to the top three pro- posed grades in the Foreign Service, that is the top of the system; too. You are an Ambassador, you are a career Minister-what is the third grade? Mr. CAMPBELL. Counselor. Senator PELL. That does not make sense because you have many people who are consuls who are class IV now. Mr. CAMPBELL. I am going to have to ask. FOREIGN SERVICE TERMINOLOGY Senator PELL. So, a man could be a consul at class IV, but would not be a consul under the present terminology, the in-house consul until he has reached class I. Out of curiosity, why do we use the phrase "consul" when so many people become consul at a much lower rank; why not use the phrase "Minister, Minister-Consul, and Ambassador"? I can see confusion in people's minds. "Oh, Joe Jones has just made consul and is still class IV,' calling a man a general when he is still a major. That would be a little confusing. Mr. CAMPBELL. I defer to the State Department on the terminology question. PERFORMANCE PAY, SELECTION OUT QUESTIONS If I may add, Mr. Chairman, just one word in relation to the per- formance pay issue, and following up on the comments you just made. I think performance pay does serve the purpose of promoting out- standing performance, but equally I see it as an appropriate reward; in other words, it is an opportunity for people in the top levels of the Government to receive bonuses in real money as a way of appropri- ately rewarding them for outstanding service. I believe that the pub- lic sector should have that kind of reward system. I think the fact we do not have it is one of the reasons we have some of the bureau- cratic characteristics the system does have. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Senator PELL. In the 9-to-5 syndrome? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Senator PELL. I am wondering now if the selection out for "time in class" can sometimes result in the Foreign Service losing its most highly qualified members first since they get to the highest grade the quickest. In other words, a young man will rise like a meteor and then out because he has risen so quickly and still cannot meet the competition at that top grade. Mr. CAMPBELL. I again would defer to people from the State Department who are more expert on the system than I am. I would only suggest that with that kind of rise, it seems to me, that the possi- bility of being selected out would be relatively small. Mr. READ. Could I add something, Mr. Chairman? Senator PELL. Please, Mr. Secretary. Mr. READ. One of the new features of the bill is a renewable limited career extension, that would take care of it. Senator PELL. Does this bill look into the question at all of pay for Foreign Service wives? I happen not to agree with their proposal, but I know it is of great interest in the service. Is there anything in the bill that speaks to that question? Mr. CAMPBELL. No. Senator PELL. And how will the bill affect Affirmative Action efforts, and how does the affirmative action provision compare with the civil service's? Mr. CAMPBELL. The affirmative action provisions are very similar to the civil service side. In addition to that, the State Department has developed a route into the system that attempts to emphasize the affirmative action character of the appointments. What the legis- lation does is to strongly reaffirm the Department's commitment to and obligation in the affirmative action area. Senator PELL. What is your own view with regard to the desir- ability of a separate Foreign Service? Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not have any attachment to uniformity. I be- lieve that the character of the obligations, the fact of overseas service, and the very fact of the history of the Service_ argues very strongly in favor of a separate. Foreign Service. FOREIGN SERVICE KINSHIP TO MILITARY SERVICE Senator PELL. Do you see what I keep driving at, that there is a greater kinship of the Foreign Service to the military service than civil service? If you had a scale, do you feel it leans more in the direc- tion of civil service or the military? Mr. CAMPBELL. I think that one has to talk about that in relation to different aspects of the system. We tended in the dialog here this Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 morning to emphasize heavily the top part of ` the system. I would say in relation to the Senior Foreign Service and the top military officers, and the Senior Executive Service [SES], that what we are seeing first in the Civil Service Reform Act, and now in the Foreign Service Act of 1979, is a. coming together in which in many ways the SES moves in the direction of the Foreign Service rather than the Foreign Service in this instance moving in the direction of the civil service. What we: try to do is.to capture some of that esprit of the top man- agers of the.system through the Senior Executive Service. So, in that sense, I would argue that we have moved at the top of the system in the direction of the. Foreign Service and ?the .top military officers in the armed services. Senator PELL. But very often in the Foreign Service you get a young man who will be assigned to be in charge of a small Embassy or as- signed to a consulate where he will be on his own because the consul general has not come, with very real responsibilities and very real crises turning up. It seems to me that those would be more akin to what a young captain or major might face, than, what a GS-8 would prob- ably,face'in his. life. What would be your view? Mr. CAMPBELL. It depends a little bit on the level of the rank. Senator PELL. I may have gotten my'numbers wrong; a 35-year-old, let me put it that way. Mr. CAMPBELL. Certainly, within the career service there are 35- year-olds in grades 13, 14, and 15, particularly those who serve outside of Washington,: where 85. percent of the career service is, who have very heavy responsibilities and carry very significant assignments ; and can indeed end up in crisis situations. One need only point to Three Mile Island as an example. Therefore, I would not-perhaps because of where I sit-draw the sharp distinction that you have been drawing today between the two career services, the Foreign Service and the civil service. Senator FELL. I must.say, I applaud you for the dedication and enthusiasm, and the strength you have brought to the civil service. I like your idea of rather than bringing the Foreign Service to the civil service, bring the civil service toward the Foreign Service. I applaud you in that regard. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator PELL. Our next witness is John Reinhardt, Director of the International Communication Agency. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. REINHARDT, DIRECTOR, U.S. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY r Mr. REINHARDT. Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable with you, we will simply put the whole statement in the record. For the record, I support the general principles of the legislation that has been submitted to the Congress. The statement makes this clear in some detail. I am prepared to respond to your questions. Senator PELL. I had an opportunity to go over this statement, and it will be entered in full in the record. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 [Mr. Reinhardt's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. REINHARDT Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss an issue of great importance and interest : The proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979. Proposals for changing personnel policies deserve the closest scrutiny and the most careful consideration because they go to the very heart of the morale, efficiency, and effectiveness of any career service. Experience has made us fully aware of this fact in the Foreign Service, and it has weighed on our minds at every step of our deliberations about the proposed bill. We have consulted with representatives of our union, Local 1812 of the American Federation of Govern- ment Employees, who have had considerable influence on the development of the Agency's position. We have consulted members of the Service, both at home and abroad, who have studied the various proposals and have shared their concerns. We have worked closely with the Department of State in drafting the proposed legislation and have been encouraged by the cooperation we have received. We have met with Secretary Vance, Under Secretary Read, Director General Barnes and other officials of the Department. Our lawyers and. personnel staffs have been in regular contact with their counterparts at State as the bill was drafted. The proposed Act reaffirms the need for a professional Foreign Service with its own personnel system. The purposes of the bill, have already been described in the testimony and supplementary material presented by the Department of State. I associate myself fully with those purposes and urge the Committe to report favorably on the bill as rapidly as may be possible. There are a few major provisions which would have a significant impact on USICA and which I would like to address. (1) the bill creates a Senior Foreign Service comparable to the Senior Execu- tive Service in the Civil Service. I support the proposed Senior Foreign Service. I see it as a positive personnel management proposal, well adapted to promote the best opportunities and incentives for our ablest senior officers. I believe the Senior Foreign Service system will contribute to enhanced productivity in the public service. At the present time, Foreign Service Officers do not enjoy many of the incentives which will be available to their counterparts in the Senior Exec- utive Service. The Senior Foreign Service proposal would put the two career serv- ices on a par and make available to senior Foreign Service Officers the incentives and rewards which are now available only to senior Civil Service employees. In return, it is reasonable to set the highest,. most stringent standards of per- formance, as this bill does. (2) The bill provides a single Foreign Service salary schedule for American personnel. The new schedule will supersede the two overlapping schedules that now exist for officers and staff employees. This will enable us to achieve the long sought objective of having a uniform pay scale for all Foreign Service personnel, including Foreign Service Information Officers, Foreign Service staff employees, and Foreign Service Reserve Officers who are available for worldwide Reserve Officers who are available for worldwide assignment. (3) The bill will provide a useful statutory basis for labor-management rela- tions, which has been lacking heretofore. (4) Consistent with Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, which established USICA, the bill provides the Director with all authority necessary to manage USICA's personnel systems. While seeking the maximum compatibility in per- sonnel policies and practices among the foreign affairs agencies, it allows for differences necessary for the accomplishment of separate Agency missions. (5) Finally, under the proposed bill, the Foreign Service "domestic specialist" personnel category is eliminated by the provision that all such personnel shall be converted mandatorily to the Civil Service not later than three years after the effective date of the Act. We concur with the need to consolidate the personnel systems which have evolved over the years, clearly sorting them into two systems-foreign and domestic. Only in that way will all employees know clearly where they stand in terms of work requirements, pay scales and assignment obligations. 1CA has taken a.number of steps toward this end in recent years. We have stopped the practice of appointing officers to positions in USICA under any For- eign Service personnel system unless they are available for assignment overseas. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 I+urther, we have implemented a regulation which severely limits the length of domestic tours for our Foreign Service Information Officers. Nevertheless, we have over 900 Agency employees classified as Foreign Service "domestic specialists" (known as FAS employees). They work as VOA techni- cians and broadcasters, magazine editors, exhibit designers, and in many of the positions essential to the support of our missions overseas. Experience has shown that the features of the Civil Service personnel system are more suitable for this class of employees than are the procedures of the Foreign Service system. For example, promotions for a domestic complement can be made more equitably under the rank-in-job system than under the rank-in-man system. For these rea- sons, we have moved in recent years toward the use of Civil Service procedures for domestic personnel, regardless of whether they are categorized as Foreign Service or Civil Service. In 1977 we entered into an agreement with Local 1812 of the American Fed- -eration of Government Employees, the exclusive bargaining representative of our Foreign Service personnel. That agreement provides that USICA's Foreign Serv- -ice "domestic specialists" would not be subject to mandatory conversion to Civil Service, though they have the option, through June 30, 1981, of converting vol- untarily. Under the agreement, those who do not exercise this option would remain in the Foreign Service. A corollary provision states that no new domestic specialists would be brought into USICA's Foreign Service. The ultimate objective of a clear distinction between Foreign Service and Civil Service within USICA would be achieved in time, through attrition and the appli- cation of new hiring policies. However, while the present arrangements go far toward meeting management needs and safeguarding employee benefits, they fall short of the clear-cut distinction between Foreign Service and Civil Service systems that is made in the proposed new Foreign Service Act of 1979. Under the proposed Act, domestic employees will be converted to the Civil Service so that all operational features of that system can be employed in day-to-day man- ngement. This will facilitate the administration of domestic personnel and will treat in the same fashion all employees who serve only in the United States. At the same time we were and are convinced that employees who were granted Foreign Service retirement benefits when they were appointed in the Foreign Service system should retain those benefits. These benefits, which were conferred upon employees who earlier were encouraged by management to join the Foreign Service, will be preserved. Because of USICA's agreement with AFGE, special provision is made in the proposed Act (Sec. 2103(b)) for the temporary exemption of USICA "domestic specialist" employees from mandatory conversion until July 1, 1981, the period allowed for voluntary conversion under the contract. Thus, the proposed legisla- tion endeavors to preserve the essential thrust of the agreement with AFGE, while providing better personnel management and following the policy and pro- cedures proposed for other foreign affairs agencies. However, I must be candid in stating that in the discussions regarding the preparation of this bill, and in view of the agreement with AFGE, I have op- posed`the application of this provision to our employees. Many of the affected employees have expressed objection to mandatory conversion. I am sure you will hear the testimony of their representatives. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate our full support for a revised, updated and consolidated Foreign Service personnel system. The revised Act can serve to clarify many aspects of our present patchwork personnel system, to correct in- equities which have evolved over the years, to consolidate the many branches of the Foreign Service into a single career service, to obtain greater comparability of pay between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, and to convey to all members of the Service our appreciation for the changing requirements and challenges they face. I shall be happy to respond to questions. FSI07 FSO AMALGAMATION Senator. PELL. I am particularly concerned with how ICA would fare under the proposed bill. There* would be certain changes. I would Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 like to get to a fundamental question of the FSIO's [Foreign Service information officers] that, as you know, came out proposed by Con- gressman Hays and myself some years ago to create the separate serv- ice. My thought at that time was that it was a very good idea to create a separate information service and also to use it as. a device quite hon- estly, to get rid of-through the promotion, selection out, features, that was part of the concept at the time-of some of the people who had perhaps been in who were not performing as they should. As the years have gone by I have come to the conclusion that I may have made an error. Perhaps we would be better off with Foreign Service officers in "fifth cone" structure. I recognize that the Foreign Service no longer has that structure of economical, political, and con- sular, and my thought would be to add information to it. We theoreti- cally got rid of the cone structure, but in fact it still continues to exist. What is your view with regard to a complete amalgamation of the FSIO Corps with the FSO Corps. Mr. REINHARDT. The last time, Mr. Chairman, that I had the privi- lege of appearing before your subcommittee you raised the same ques- tion. I have thought about it a great deal since that time and have concluded that what we are talking about is not a separate Foreign Service. What you are calling the FSIO cone is not a separate Foreign Service, and this bill would not make it a separate Foreign Service. If the bill is passed, there would be a great measure of compatibility be- tween the personnel service of the Department of State and the per- sonnel service of USICA, and the personnel service of AID. That is, the general rules, or the general regulations for recruiting; for promo- tion; for selection out; for assignment, would be compatible. At the same time, each of these three Foreign Service agencies would administer its own personnel system. It seems to me that since these systems are different. Since the functions are different; since the re- cruitment process, for example, is entirely different; since the exami- Iiation process is different. The personnel systems should be administered in a different way, but in accordance with general compatible principles of personnel administration. FSIO7 FSO ADMISSION PROCESS Senator PELL. I think the difficulty of admission into the FSIO Corps is just as tough as into the FSO Corps; is that correct? Mr. REINHARDT. They follow the same general procedures, a written examination and an oral examination. But it is a different examina- tion, sir. Senator PELL. This, I understand. What, in essence, would be its impact of this proposed bill on your agency, if it was passed? Mr. REINHARDT. It would make even more rigid the compatibility of regulations, rules, and legislation governing the personnel system. Senator PELL. It would make what even more rigid ? Mr. REINHARDT. The compatibility. That is, each system would recruit, would promote, would assign, would dismiss or select out in accordance with a compatible system. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Senator PELL. What is the impact of this bill on your service specifi- cally, does it change any of your present procedures? Mr.. REINHARDT.. The Senior Foreign Service provisions of the bill would be applicable to our service, for example. This would be quite different from our present practices. Senator PELL. How would you handle the problem of the conversion of. some of your employees who, I think, are covered by an existing union agreement? Would that not provide a complication here? Mr. REINHARDT. I made that clear in the prepared statement, and I will be happy to discuss it briefly for you, sir.. We have a category of personnel in our system, so does the Depart- ment of State, for that matter,, called FAS, a category that was estab- lished some years ago. It never worked as it was envisioned.. In 1977, within this so-called FAS we had personnel Senator PELL. Excuse me, what is FAS? Mr. REINIARDT. Foreign affairs specialist is the exact designation. This is a category. of personnel who receive the general benefits of the Foreign Service, the retirement provisions, for example. But these people have not by and large served overseas; and by and large have no intention of serving overseas. Nevertheless, they were brought to- gether in this single category. In 1977 in USICA we, with the agreement of our union, moved to abolish the FAS service over it period of time. From 1977 until 1981, persons in that category called FAS could choose between the civil service or the Foreign Service. There are approximately 900 persons in this category. Some of them have already exercised the option either to enter the civil service or to remain in the Foreign Service ; some have not exercised this option yet. The legislation now before the Congress ,deals with this category called FAS in the Department of State and in USICA. We endorse the principle of two separate personnel categories, one for the civil service and one for the Foreign Service, as this bill is intended to do. Nevertheless, it gives us a problem within our own agency because of this prior agreement with the union. Senator PELL. I think generally I recognize the problem at the higher levels. Now, I think, both the State Department and the ICA have top-heavy senior levels. Are not the present legislative author- ities, administrative practices, really sufficient to deal with this prob- lem, or do you need new legislation? Mr. REINHARDT. It is less of a problem in USICA than I under- stand it is in the Department of State. In the category of class I officers, for example, we have approximately 44 officers now. This is approxi- mately what we need at that level. We have a few more than we actually need at the class 2 level. Thus, the impact of this problem on us is not nearly as severe as it is in the Department of State. We are a smaller agency. The Department of State has far more people-than we do, far more Foreign Service officers than we do, and naturally would have a greater problem at their upper levels. In short, under existing legislation we have been able to deal with this problem of seniority in our own agency. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 COMPARABILITY WITH OTHER NATIONS' FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES Senator PELL. In devising this legislation-I direct this question also to Secretary Read-have you drawn at all on the experiences of other nations, the French, Italian, British, and German Foreign Services because it seems to me it goes a different line than other services; that ? is not necessarily meaning that it is better or worse, but I would like to get first Mr. Read's reaction and also Mr. Reinhardt's for his specific agency. Mr. READ. We had rather detailed discussions, Senator Pell, with our - counterparts in Canada and the United Kingdom, and at different l y m cer ain very times with the Federal Republic of Germany, but on discrete aspects have we found applicability and transferability of ideas. Senator PELL. Mr. Reinhardt? Mr. REINHARDT. At the time of the reorganization of our agency 2 years ago we looked into this question to a great extent. We studied the information, cultural and educational activities of foreign affairs agencies of several major governments-all governments that had one-and we drew from their experience. We looked upon our own ex- periences over the last 30 years and believe that we dealt responsibly with this question at the time of reorganization. We have not studied it in connection with the proposed legislation. Senator PELL. Without saying what services you think are poor but thinking of those services which are good, would you agree Mr. Read, that probably the French, Italian, and British Foreign Services, with their wealth of experience are really very, very effective in promoting their countries' interests? Just as our own service is very effective. Ana yet, they start from a very different premise. They start from a highly competitive, even more competitive, entrance than Ave have. Then, once in, without pay incentives or anything else, they are reasonably sure, just because of the incentive and interest of the job, the desire for promotion, to stay in. Why is that not a good idea? Mr. READ. That creates an accurate picture as I understand it, and I agree with the characterization. I do think the other systems, as I know them, are much more self- contained than our system. I believe here we have a certain number of infusion of political appointments with new administrations. In- and-out movement among agencies of government is a healthy thing, and I think it works very well. LIMITATION ON POLITICAL APPOINTEES Senator PELL. I guess one of. the greatest factors for morale in the Foreign Service, competition in improvement of performance, would be if we had a limitation of 5 percent on political appointees. Was this discussed at all in drawing up this legislation? I think I had a pro- posal a couple years ago for 15 percent. Mr. READ. Yes, and on the senior positions there is precisely a 5- percent noncareer provision which would be for the first time a limita- tion on politization. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Senator PELL. Could you carry that thought one step further and say nobody would be an Ambassador unless he is a member of the Senior Foreign Service? Mr. READ. No; I think that would inhibit the constitutional powers of the President. There is now, in fact, a 3-to-1 ratio. Senator PELL. I know in the years that I have been in the Senate, under six Presidents, that ratio has always stayed about the same, .somewhere around 30 percent. What is it, now? Mr. READ. Seventy-five to twenty-five. We are very conscientious in keeping it at that ratio. That is a considerably higher career percentage than in years prior. RETENTION OF FSIO CORPS Senator PELL. Mr. Reinhardt, do you believe that the FSIO Corps should be retained, then? Mr. REINHARDT. I dot sir. Senator PELL. All right. Thank you very much. I have enjoyed reading your testimony, I appreciate it very much. Mr. REINHARDT. Thank you, sir. Senator PELL. Thank you. Mr. Nooter, the Acting Administrator for the Agency of Interna- tional Development. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT H. NOOTER, ACTING ADMINISTRA- TOR, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Mr. NooTER. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I will submit my statement for the record and move right into any questions you might have. We do think the proposal has desirable features for our agency. Senator PELL. Thank you very much, indeed. Your testimony will be put in full into the record. I had a chance to go through it last night. [Mr. Nooter's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED, STATEMENT, OF HON. ROBERT H. NOOTER Mr. Chairman and members of the committee : I am pleased to appear before you to testify in favor of the legislation proposed by the President, the Foreign Service Act of 1979. We at A.I.D. regard this proposed bill as a long overdue effort to update the Foreign Service Act of 1946. The Secretary of State is to be commended for his leadership in guiding this bill, in all its complexities, through the Executive Branch and to the Congress for your consideration because it is a well-written, well-organized document that updates and revises the old law, and adds several new provisions that are consistent with the Administration's reform of the per- sonnel laws governing domestic U.S. Government employees. The proposed new Foreign Service Act is designed to provide the basic per- sonnel authority for the employees who serve abroad for each of the foreign affairs agencies. These agencies include the Department of State, the United States International Communication Agency (USICA), the proposed new In- ternational Development Cooperation Agency , (IDCA), and, to a more limited extent, the Peace Corps and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. We support the concept of a single, comprehensive statute as the basic set of authorities for the personnel systems of all foreign affairs agencies. At present, A.I.D. utilizes the Foreign Service Act as the basic legislation governing its Foreign Service personnel. As one of the component agencies of IDCA, A.I.D. would be included within the coverage of the new law. We believe that the basic concepts of the Foreign Service as enunciated in the proposed new statute are entirely appropriate for A.I.D. These include the basic rank-in-person concept that is essential to a mobile Foreign Service; the com- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 anitment of Foreign Service employees to worldwide -availability ; the use of panels .and boards for selection, evaluation, and assignment ; and the strongly held prin- -ciple that merit and performance, fairly evaluated, are the basis for selection, .advancement and tenure in the Service. A shared set of legal authorities will help A.I.D., the State Department, and ICA to collaborate-and to achieve the efficiencies that result from uniformity- in a number of areas in which, despite the diversity in the work of our several ? agencies, our needs and interests are similar. We now have joint regulations in a number of areas. We would expect that, operating under a new umbrella statute, this collaboration will continue. We would expect, for example, to continue to have joint regulations covering travel, overseas allowances and benefits, and the transportation of people and their effects to posts abroad. We expect that language training and area spe- cialty training will continue to be offered by the Foreign Service Institute for personnel of all foreign affairs agencies, and that State will continue to man- age the Foreign Service retirement system for participants from all foreign .affairs agencies. There will continue to be a single Foreign Service Grievance Board to act on the grievances from employees of all foreign service agencies. We are also pleased with the provisions in the bill for a single, simplified pay schedule for all Foreign Service personnel. This change will, in the first place, simplify and rationalize the pay system by bringing Foreign Service staff employees within the same pay schedule as other Foreign Service employees and ,eliminating the artificial distinction that now exists between Foreign Service staff employees and other Foreign Service employees. It is particularly important for A.I.D. that there be a maximum compatibility in the rules governing its Foreign Service and Civil Service employees. These -two groups of employees are, in fact, interrelated and function-or should func- tion-as a single unit. It is the Agency's intention to encourage unified manage- ment of the Agency's personnel. The proposed new Foreign Service Act would not conflict with the "Obey Amendment" (Section 401 of last year's A.I.D. authorization act), or the regu- lations that the President submitted to the Congress on May 1 of this year to implement Section 401. Pursuant to the directive of the amendment that A.I.D. adopt a "unified" personnel system, the regulations call for the designation of certain positions in A.I.D. for incumbency by Foreign Service personnel, and -encourages Civil Service employees who meet the standards for entry into the Foreign Service to convert to the Foreign Service. This bill does not alter .A.I.D.'s commitment to the policy underlying Section 401. A.I.D. will follow the regulations promulgated under Section 401. in filling positions. In conclusion, A.I.D. supports the bill and believes it to -be an excellent set of -authorities to enable us to employ our Foreign Service personnel in ways which can best achieve the objectives of our administration of the Foreign Assistance .Act. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Senator PELL. As you know, your agency has been "buffeted" an awful lot in these last few veers. I do not mean to burden you with my 'own views, you are probably familiar with my resolution which would "dismantle it completely-not with regard to any individuals in it, but from the viewpoint of the execution of the mission for the United 'States. Those functions-just so the record is clear-would still be carried on, but they would be carried on by private voluntary agencies, international agencies, or where necessary by the Bureau within the t State Department for political reasons. I recognize that is not a very popular view and in all likelihood will not prevail. " S. 1450 IMPACT ON AID Now, in order to help you do your job as best you can, would you tell me how this bill impacts on your agency? Mr. NooTEa. Yes. There will be three ways in which it will have an effect on us. One will be the establishment of the Senior Foreign :Service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Senator PELL. Will that affect your Agency? Will your top men. overseas, your AID chiefs, be members of that Senior Foreign Service Corps? Mr. NoOTER. That is correct. The same rules would apply to our serv- ice in the senior ranks. Senator PELL. Would those chiefs be drawn from the State Depart- ment, or ICA, or would they be drawn from your own agency? Mr. NooTER. They would be drawn from our own career service, except to the extent that the 5 percent noncareer provision might be applied. But we would essentially have people coming up through our system in the same way, on a career basis, to fill the Senior Foreign Service, as would be true of the other two services. SKIPPING FROM AGENCY TO AGENCY Senator PELL. Is there an opportunity and this question I would direct to Secretary Read-for people to skip back and forth a bit so, a man who might be interested in USIA.work or AID work could spend 5 years of his career in one of those agencies, and then come back. Mr. READ. We hope that will be facilitated. Mr. NooTER. We do now, and Mr. Read and I have had conversations about how to expand the amount which goes on. One of the ways this is done is simply by detailing a person from one agency to another while not changing his personnel status. He is on loan to the other agency, but he retains his rights and his standing in his own organization. On other occasions a person may actually transfer on a permanent basis, as has happened from time to time over the years one way or the other.. BENEFITS FOR FOREIGN SERVICE PEOPLE If I could add to the dialog that took place before about the Senior Foreign Service, I think one of the important aspects is that our For- eign Service people-be able to qualify for benefits comparable to those- of the civil service. I know your views on this, but I would say while our employees are extraordinarily dedicated, particularly our technical people, the temptation to transfer to an agency that has more potential for pay would be very great. We would risk, in that case, losing what might usually be our better people who would be tempted to make the transfer to a civil service job if they had the chance for a performance bonus there where they did not have it in our system. I therefore think there is a defensive aspect that is very important in the creation of the Senior Foreign Service, as well as the more positive, aspect of creating incentives. The other impact on our system would be the elimination of the FSS category which we think is desirable. That category may have been useful in the past, but now it is an obstacle to upward mobility for women, particularly secretaries, and its elimination would eliminate an artificial barrier to* job progression. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 209 REVISED PAY SCALE Third, the bill will provide the basis for a revised pay scale. Our interest here is in a pay scale which is more compatible with that of the civil service. I think for us, perhaps even more than the other agencies, some transferability between the civil service and the For- eign Service for our personnel is very important-hopefully with more transfers into the Foreign Service where we have a need for midcareer officers in the technical ranks to meet our needs. Those are the three ways, I think, that would affect us the most. We do not have the conversion problems of some of the other agencies because we now give Foreign Service limited appointments only to people with Foreign Service availability. The other possible impact would be the applicability of some of the new rules upon our system, such as time in class and selection out; but that would depend on how decisions were made and on how the rules would be implemented. BILL IMPACT ON EXISTING STATE-Am RELATIONSHIP. Senator PELL. Would there be any change in the existing State-AID relationship caused by the enactment of this bill, or would it be the same? Mr. NooTER. Only in the sense that our rules would be more closely aliiied with each other, but the intention of the bill as drafted is that each of the three agencies would then carry out those rules in ways that are consistent with their own individual needs. Nevertheless, some of the differences that exist in personnel categories would be eliminated, so that our systems would be more compatible than they are now. Senator PELL. It is our understanding that in some of the bureaus in AID, such as policy planning, approximately 70 percent of the slots will be designated as GS instead of as Foreign Service. Why would that be? Mr. NooTER. Well, we have another exercise going on within AID that is not applicable to the other two agencies, but in fact really is, moving us in the direction which State now uses. The provisions of section 401 call fora "unified personnel system" within AID. We have submitted regulations to the Congress, and if they are put into effect on October 1, they will result in a larger number of Foreign Service y people administering our programs and policies in Washington. The exact number of those positions to be designated only for Foreign Service appointments is not fully decided. Some parts of the Con- gress have expressed the view that it should be a larger instead of smaller number, and we are heeding that invocation. Senator PELL. Thank you very, very much indeed, Mr. Nooter. If there are any further questions we will submit them. We wanted to get- this hearing out of the way prior to the recess period so that the legis- lation can be discussed, and we all hopefully will have more crystallized views on its merits when we come back in the fall. I recognize full well the tremendous amount of work that Secretary Read has put into this for 'a long time. Obviously, legislation is the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 passage of the possible and there will have to be compromises. I woulcf hope that those who are interested will not dig their feet in too much- whether it is the Foreign Service Association or other different groups.. In general, I think, the legislation is good. Except some of the concerns which I expressed today, about which I feel strongly, I see no other wrinkles in it. But I, too, want to have, a chance to go through it in greater detail, and will do so in the coming L weeks. I want to congratulate the Department for finally coming forwards with this very real opus which has been; under way for a long time. The real credit for it goes to Secretary Read, who pursued this vigor- ously right from the very beginning. I ani very 'conscious -of the irnpontance'; the administration attaches to ' it; with 'Secretary' Vaance's wi'lliiigness to come up today and take the leading role in putting it forward. Thank you, Mr. Nooter for being with us. The meeting is adjourned., [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1979 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1979 UNITED STATES SENATE, .SUBCOMMITTEE ON ARMS CONTROL, OCEANS, INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, OF THE CoiIMITPF.E ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claiborne Pell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present : Senators Pell and Javits. The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will continue its hearings on S. 1450, the Foreign :Service At of 1979. This legislation, which runs parallel with'tlie 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, is designed to revise, simplify, and consolidate in one place all the legislation concerning the administration of the Foreign Services. I would adhere my own view that the Department of State should not be too intent on having the Foreign Service and the civil service run in parallel lines. They are different services and they should em- phasize their differences and not try to secure the greatest similarity possible between them. Today's witnesses consist of retired career ministers, ambassadors, Foreign Service officers, as well as representatives of various employee unions and minority groups. I am looking forward to hearing their views on this bill very much indeed. Next Wednesday, I will be holding another hearing to provide the administration with an opportunity to respond to any criticisms or points brought out in today's testimony. The first witness today is Martin Herz, former Ambassador to Bul- garia, a very old friend of the chairman. We entered the Foreign Serv- ice practically the same day, if my recollection is correct, and served in the same part of the world at different times. So, welcome, Ambassador. We are delighted you are here. As you, know, I am familiar with some of your ideas and look forward to hearing them articulated here. I would like to add that we have quitea large number of witnesses; so I would hope that the witnesses would hold themselves to a maxi- mum of 10 minutes. Full statements will appear in each case in full in, the record. And, if they can do it in less than 10 minutes, in 5 minutes,. even better, giving more opportunity for questions and comments. Ambassador Herz. [Ambassador Herz's biography follows:] (211) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 212 BIOGRAPHY OF AMBASSADOR MARTIN F. HERZ Born 1917 in New York; educated in Vienna, Austria; Oxford; and in New York (Columbia University). Active in business before entering federal service. Drafted in 1941, rose from private to major in World War II, specializing in psychological warfare (combat propaganda) addressed to German troops. Spe- cialist in surrender, capture, and desertion. Entered the Foreign Service by examination at the bottom grade (unclassified- C) in 1946. Political officer, Vienna, Austria (1946-48) ; in charge of Austrian information and cultural affairs, Department of State (1948-50) ; political officer, Paris, France (1950-54) ; political officer, Phnom Penh, Cambodia (1955- 57) ; political officer, Tokyo, Japan (1957-59).. Department of State, African affairs (1960-62) ; Senior Seminar in Foreign Policy (1962-63) ; counselor for political affairs, Tehran, Iran (1963-67) ; director for Laos/Cambodian affairs, Department of State (1967-68) ; minister- counselor for political affairs, Saigon, Vietnam (1968-70) ; Senior Deputy Assist- ant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Department of State (1970-74) ; ambassador to People's Republic of Bulgaria (1974-77) ; assigned to Georgetown University (1977-79) ; retired from federal service 1979. Presently Director of Studies of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., also adjunct professor of diplomacy and senior research fellow of the university's Ethics and Public Policy Center. Author of the following books: The Golden Ladle (1944) ; A Short History of Cambodia (1958) ; Beginnings of the Cold War (1966) ; How the Cold War Is Taught (1978) ; Decline of the West? George Kerman and His Critics (1978). Awards and decorations: Purple Heart (1944), Bronze Star (1945), Com- mendable Service Award, Department of State (1960), Superior Honor Award, Department of State (1970), Medal of Honor with Silver Star, Austria (1973) ; Horseman of Madara,.Bulgaria (1977). :STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN F. HERZ, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO BULGARIA Ambassador HERZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permis- 'sion, I would like to request that the annexes to my statement be in- ? corporated in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your entire statement, includ- ing annexes will be included after your oral statement. Ambassador HERZ. I will abbreviate my statement in the interest of saving time. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ambassador HERZ. I also would appreciate it if my letter to Sen- -ator Church dated October 24, which also summarizes some points of my position, could be incorporated in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. [The information referred to follows:] Hon. FRANK CuuRCH, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, MARTIN F. HERZ, Washington, D.C., October 24, 1979. -U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR : I am writing with respect to H.R. 4674, the "Foreign Service Act of 1979" on which I have testified before the House Subcommittee on Septem- 'her 7. I am sorry that I was notified too late about the dates of hearings by your Committee, but hope that the following observations in writing may be circulated to the Senators who are studying the bill. My comments are based on experience of over 32 years in the Foreign Service, -which culminated in the position of American Ambassador to Bulgaria-prob- ably the least important position that I held during my career, in'terms of the `influence I had on American policy, but indicating that I am commenting as some- one who started at the bottom and made it to the top of the profession. I am now Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 retired, and there is no possible personal interest that I can have in seeing my recommendations adopted, I make them strictly as a citizen interested in seeing that our country has the best possible people in its first line of defense. I see serious deficiencies in the proposed bill, in the power that it would give a future Secretary of State to make arbitrary dismissals of Senior Foreign Serv- ice officers because they do not inspire him with confidence that they will execute his policies with the enthusiasms he seeks in his subordinates. Unfortunately ? such enthusiasm also entails one-sidedness, and I believe a healthy diversity of views in the Foreign Service, especially among its top officers, is a national asset. As I testified before the House, I have perhaps a longer memory than my younger colleagues in the Foreign Service, and perhaps even than some of the members of the Committee. There is no merit in this, for it is entirely a function '- of age. But I lived through a period in our history when an Administration tried to purge the Foreign Service of officers,. especially senior officers, who had "lost China" or did not display enough "positive loyalty" to the Administration then in office. I do not predict that such a period will come again-but I strongly urge that your Committee modify the bill to make certain that if such a period comes again, the new Foreign Service Act cannot be used to "decapitate" the Foreign Service. As now written, a future Secretary of State could do so very easily. Take, for instance, the phrasing of Section 612(a) which says that recom- mendations and rankings by selection boards shall be based on records of char- acter, ability, conduct, quality of work, industry, experience, etc. * * * and records of current and prospective assignments." How can there be a "record, of a prospective assignment" except in the sense that the file could contain a. notation to the effect that "no assignment is in prospect" for the officer in ques- tion? At the time of Senator McCarthy, when his friend Scott McLeod was in charge of the administration of the State Department, if it had been possible to make wholesale changes in the top ranks of the Foreign Service by simply noting in their personnel records that no "prospective assignments" were avail- able for them-you may be sure that the then administration would have taken, ample advantage of such a provision. The provision is unnecessary, subject to abuse, and should be dropped. Or take Section 641(b) which says that Members of the Service whose maxi- mum time in class * * * expires * * * may continue under limited extensions [which] may be granted and renewed by the Secretary in light of the recom- mendations of selection boards * * * and the needs of the Service." What does- this imply? It implies that renewal of a member of the Senior Foreign Service will not be in accordance with the rank-ordering established by selection boards- but by the way any Secretary of State construes "the needs of the Service" not just in terms of numbers but also in terms of people. At least, such a con- struction is possible under this provision as it is now drafted. . The phrase "and the needs of the Service" should be dropped, or else provisions; written into the law so that retention of members of the Senior Foreign Service will not be at the caprice of a Secretary of State but in accordance with merit as determined by the selection boards. I hope it is understood that I am not accusing or suspecting the present Admin- istration of any capricious or underhanded approach toward the Senior Foreign Service. I am sure there is no intention to politicize it by weeding out non- conformists or people lacking enthusiasm for certain policies. But a future Ad- 61 ministration could do just that, and could do it with great ease if provisions of- this kind are retained in the bill. I understand that former Secretary Kissinger has testified favorably about the provisions for the Senior Foreign Service on the basis of his experience that bright, vigorous senior FSO's enthusiastic for what he was trying to accomplish, A weren't always available. An Administration embarked single-mindedly on a certain policy will always wish to surround itself with career officers who are devoted with equal single-mindedness to such policies. Such an Administration- and one doesn't have to go back to the dim past to see this-will always complain that senior FSO's are too conservative or too liberal or too cautious or too- much encumbered by the past. But what they see as a liability I believe to be a national asset that we should be careful to preserve. Virtually every new Administration comes into office with an intense suspicion of the Foreign Service, and especially of the senior officers who have served the- previous Administration, and wishing to make sure that their "own people", or- people full of enthusiasm for the new policies, are put as high as possible into. the Service. Very often they realize that this has been a mistake, that senior Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100060001-4 FSO's who hold somewhat different opinions, who represent an institutional memory, who know how and why similar attempts in the past come to grief, are really great assets to have around ; and even if they did not realize this, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should make sure that such senior officers cannot be simply discarded from the system. Their asking of inconvenient ques- tions, their bringing up things from their experience which may not be otherwise known or understood, all this is something very precious for the policy formu- lation process and we should be very careful not to deprive ourselves of it. Even the provisions of Section 602(b), that Decisions of the Secretary on promotions into and retention in the Senior Foreign Service shall take into account "the needs of the Service to plan for the continuing admission of new members and for effective career development and reliable promotional opportu- nities" could be abused. I am not saying, again, that this particular Adminis- tration has any such plans. But chucking, out. older and more experienced officers to make room at the top for younger ones entails a price. Certainly it should take place in a reasonable and orderly way. But there are no safeguards, in the bill as it is present written, that it will be in a reasonable and orderly way-such language could be used to get rid of very. large numbers of senior officers because they are, or are believed to be, inconvenient to have around, perhaps lacking in the "positive loyalty" that John Foster.Dulles sought in his subordinates, to the lasting impoverishment of the, policy formulation process during those years. My citing of examples from among conservatives is incidental, I can visualize the same bias, or even fanaticism, coming from the other side. My point is that we should be careful not to politicize the Senior Foreign Service by calling for the limited appointments. Tenure at the top should be precarious, that is fine, but it should not be politically precarious, in the sense that a new Administration could come in and bring about a Gleichschaltung of the top ranks of our Foreign 'Service. [Gleichschaltung=assuring conformity by eliminating people who do not conform, term used in connection with the Nazi-fication of post-Anschluss Austria.] I know that there are some members of both Houses who will welcome the idea of allowing a new Administration to assure conformity through the pro- visions of the new Foreign Service Act. But I do not think that thoughtful members of your Committee will wish to accommodate such inclinations if they exist, for we need diversity at the top of our professional Foreign Service. Senator Church, I have been a member of the American Foreign Service As- sociation for as long as I can remember. I was an officer twice, and at one time 'was Vice Chairman of its Board. I am devoted to its principal purpose, which is the enhancement and protection of professionalism in foreign affairs. But I do not believe that AFSA can validly speak to the matter that I am raising, because it represents a lot more junior and middle-grade officers than senior officers. Many senior members of AFSA share my views, but those views were not reflected in the testimony that AFSA has given to the House. I am not blaming. AFSA for this, they naturally have to respond to the needs of the largest numbers of their members. But I warn against taking their views as representative of those of senior officers. During my testimony before the House sub-committee. I was asked if I didn't agree that a certain precariousness of the position of a Senior officer, having 'him put the predictable part of his career behind him and accept the risks that go with higher responsibility, is desirable. 'At that time I had not, perhaps, given that question sufficient thought so that my response to its was inadequate. If I were asked the same question now, I would answer as follows-and I believe the Committee itself should answer the same way : Applying more stringent criteria of performance and stature and ability to people at the. top of the Foreign Service pyramid is a healthy and constructive -idea. There is nothing wrong with it if what one is seeking is ever-higher standards of professionalism. But is that really what we are seeking? Or are some of the proponents of that aspect of the reform not perhaps secretly seek- ing to give every Administration an opportunity to surround. Itself with top Foreign Service officers who are politically congenial to it? If we try to make this possible, we gain something-greater homogeneity near the top-hut we also lose something, namely the unpolitical nature of our Foreign Service. We should be very careful before we opt, consciously, for such a Senior Foreign 'Service, for that means wholesale changes at the top every four or eight years, with a tremendous loss and waste of experience-and or moral courage near the top, where it is especially necessary. When the top career rewards go to those Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 who make themselves most agreeable to a new Administration, when the penalties fall wholesale on those who are or are suspected of not being imbued with the desired enthusiasm, then you have politicized the Senior Foreign Service. At the price of greater homogeneity you will have sacrificed a reservoir of experience, willingness to dissent, to ask the inconvenient question at a time of crisis, that represent a very important asset to our Nation. I am not against the idea of a Senior Foreign Service. Such a service is not necessary, but properly administered it might perhaps do some good. But I warn against a political Senior Foreign Service. I recommend changes in the bill which will make merit, and not politics, the criteria for retention in the Senior Foreign Service. illy full testimony before the House subcommittee should be available in a cou- ple of weeks or so. I hope that members who read this letter will supplement it with a reading of that testimony. Again-I have nothing to gain by writing this letter or testifying. My career is behind me. I am not in any way bitter. I have had a good career. But because I have seen how the Service can be well or ill used, with good or disastrous consequences for our foreign policies and our national security, I warn against politicizing the Senior Foreign Service, however uninten- MARTIN F. HERZ. Ambassador HERZ. In expressing my appreciation to your com- inittee for allowing me to testify about one aspPot of the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979, I wish to stress that f speak for no one but myself. I do not represent an organization. But, the ideas that I shall submit to you coincide with those of a number of senior officers of the Foreign Service who are still on active duty. I myself retired this. year after 37 years of Government service, 5 of them in the Armed Forces and over 32 in the Foreign Service. I entered the Foreign Service at the bottom, in 1946, by the exami- nation route, and advanced step by step to class 1, which I reached after 21 years. The most important position I attained was that of Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. The most prestigious was that of Ambassador to Bulgaria. The most unpleasant, though not unrewarding to the inner man, was that of Minister-Counselor at the American Embassy in Saigon, after the Tet offensive' in 1968. I was not, incidentally, the first choice for that unpleasant position. I was offered it, and accepted, after one or two others had turned it down. I was amazed then, and am even more amazed now, that it should be possible in a disciplined career service to turn down a responsible position just because it is extremely difficult or unpleasant. Mr. Chairman, I have perhaps a longer memory than my younger colleagues in the Foreign Service, and perhaps, even than some of the members of this committee. There is no merit in this, for it is entirely a function of age. I happen to have lived through a period in our history when there was a sort of open season against Senior For- eign Service officers. I am concerned that the proposed legislation will not only not guard against a repetition of those dangerous. days-dangerous not just to the Foreign Service, but to the country-but, that it will make it easier for a future Secretary of State to "decapitate" the Foreign Service through mass retirements of its most experienced and most valuable members. This is not a fantasy of mine. I have been there. I have seen it going on all around me. I have seen friends and colleagues hounded out of the service. I have seen loyal Foreign Service officers, who had been cleared again and again and again by the most rigorous security pro- tionally it might be. Sincerely yours, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 cedures, dismissed from the service because the Secretary of State, and those whom he had brought into the Department with him, did not share their views and their outlook, and because those politically appointed officials were subservient to others who would make the Foreign Service a scapegoat for our misfortunes and failures abroad. The CHAIRMAN. I cannot help but interpolate. I was a Foreign Service agent at that time. I remember being a security officer in the EE security office or whatever it was called at the time. And nobody thinks that John Foster Dulles or President Eisenhower were evil men, yet very evil things happened with the best of intentions at the time. And, the same thing could very easily happen again. I appreciate the remarks that you are making. Ambassador HERZ.. Thank you, sir. It may be said that McCarthy was an isolated phenomenon that is not likely to be repeated. To this, I would reply that it is a misreading of history to associate McCarthy- ism with only one man. There were a number* of Senators and Repre- sentatives who shared his attitudes and who outlived him and who continued to do damage to the service and whose views were given very much weight in'the executive branch: It is, thus, not fanciful for me to look at the proposed legislation from the point of view whether a future Secretary of State would be more, or less, able to root out of the service people whom he might not like, whose political views, real or imagined, he might not share, or whose presence in the service might be an embarrassment to him in his relations with powerful Members of the Congress. I find that there is serious'ground for concern because the provision for limited appointments to the Senior Foreign Service is tailormade for unscrupulous use against senior officers suspected of holding views divergent from those of an incoming new adrriinistration. It should be understood that I am not attributing to this adminis- tration, certainly not to' the present Secretary of State, also not to the excellent career officers who have -worked on this legislation, any in- tention-to open the way to some future inquisition or bloodbath of the Senior Foreign' Service. . These are all honorable men, inspired by the highest motives. What I question is the wisdom of enacting legislation which could be abused in a way that the framers of the legislation had not intended or en- visaged. This involves a question of public policy-whether it is Wise, even if some benefits would flow from a certain measure, to open the doors to possible abuse of those measures. I an! proceeding in my testimony from the assumption that the wise course of action is to forgo some minor advantages if there is a major danger that the purposes of the legislation could be perverted some time in the future under circumstances that we cannot, at present, foretell.: At this point, I would like to make a short digression-it is only a seeming digression. You who have devoted so much time to the Foreign Service and its problems and to this pending legislation, are, of course, aware of the weaknesses of a career diplomatic service in our political environment. Even when there are no accusations of disloyalty, or even 'treason, as occurred in the late forties and early fifties, it is fair to say, I think, that the Foreign Service does not enjoy a good press, that there are people, perhaps also in this House, who feel that there is Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 something wrong with it, and that somehow the service is "unrepre- sentative" of the United States. From this attitude, which I submit is quite widespread or at least. in our society, it is not a very long way to distrusting the Foreign Service and associating it with policies that one does not like. It is no secret, I think that both the Kennedy and Nixon administrations came into office with a determination to place "their own men" at the top of the Department and into key positions abroad, because they dis- trusted the views and attitudes and orientation of the professionals. What one Secretary of State called "positive loyalty," which he de- manded from the Foreign Service, others would call conformity. And, I.submit, conformity in the Foreign Service is a very dangerous thing because it is from the Foreign Service that the questions come that need. to be asked, that the collective memory of our diplomacy can as- sert itself, that the inconvenient counterargument needs to originate. We need, in other words, a free play of ideas in the Department of State and the Foreign Service. Thank God we have it now. We have not always had it, and there is no reason to believe that it is fore- ordained that we shall always have it. We may lose it if we aren't 'easeful. We have lost it before. The proposed legislation does not pro- tect it, on the contrary, it endangers that free flow of ideas, which, of course, includes ideas of a contrary nature that another administra- tion might not cherish. I believe that section 602, which makes retention in the Senior For- eign Service a matter of the Secretary's appreciation of the "needs of the service to plan for the continuing admission of new members" and section 641, which allows the Secretary, by regulation, "to in- crease or decrease such maximum time for a class * * * at` the needs of the service may require" opens the way to mass dismissals of Senior Foreign Service officers by some, new administration that might be convinced that they all "lost China" or "lost Africa" or were "pinks" or "fascists" or otherwise uncongenial. What would Mr. Scott McLeod, whom Mr. Dulles brought into the State Department as his head of administration and security, and who was a friend and confidant of Senator McCarthy, have made of such n wide latitude given to a Secretary of State? He would have reveled in it. He would have exploited it to the utmost to get rid. of Foreign 'Service officers who were suspected.not of being Communists, but of being left-leaning, excessively liberal, wooly-minded, do-gooders who didn't understand the reality of the threat. _ What might be the future policy in whose name another open sea, son might be declared? Perhaps it might be on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But, whatever end of the spectrum it might come from, it would be bad news for the country, for the freedom to express unpopular ideas, and for the principle that a professional career service is, in any case, the servant and not the master of foreign policy. Let me make clear what I meant by the last remark. I.believe that it is, and was, profoundly mistaken to believe that Foreign Service officers represent political parties or political tendencies. The paranoid attitude, for instance, of Mr. Ehrlichman, who saw the Nixon admin- istration's foreign policy sapped by disloyal career public servants, was not justified. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 218 . The Foreign Service loyally implemented Mr. Nixon's policies just as it had implemented those of his predecessor and his successors. It is a non-political service. But, that is precisely what makes it so sus- pect in the eyes of some of the political chieftains in the White House. "Positive loyalty" is not, after all, so very far removed from the, performance checks that have recently been ordered in the White House and which require loyalty, once more, to be checked out. It is only a relatively small step from getting. someone's loyalty to evaluat- ing his usefulness according to how much he or she agrees, or en- thusiastically supports, certain policies. In other words, the danger is always present. It is only a matter of degree. So, it is not so far-fetched to imagine that some future administration might want, to make a clean sweep of the Senior Foreign Service because it is associated, or the minds of the new, in- coming administration, with failures and idiocies or total benighted- ness, or worse-sympathy with our enemies, or inveterate blindness toward something that is particularly important to such an administration. With your permission, I will skip the section of my testimony deal- ing with George Kennan, which,.I think, is wise and pertinent, but can be read in the written record. It will not have escaped you that the desirable characteristics that Kennan saw in a Foreign Service officer, come from "long pursuit" of the career. In other words, I am not at all sure that they are fully developed in the younger and more vigorous and less skeptical and more ambitious officers who so often strike the political leaders as more with, it, as sharing their own. ideas more visibly and articulately, as being, in other words, in step with the times. This is precisely what I am warning against, and I think it is not an excessive extrapolation from the remarks of Kennan that I have just cited to say that he, too, sees merit in experience, in the acquisition of that skeptical detachment which does not come readily to younger people. Section 612 of, the proposed legislation would make one of the criteria for promotion or retention in the Senior Foreign Service not only the usual performance evaluation reports, commendations, awards, rep- rimands, and so forth, but also records of current and prospective as- signments. What a strange expression-records of prospective assign- ments. How can there be a record of prospective assignments, except a notation that Mr. or Ms. X is in line for a new job, and that Mr. or Ms. Y does not have a job in prospect? . What could not Mr. Scott McLeod, the agent of Senator Joe Mc- Carthy in the State Department, have made with such a provision as it applied to, say, Mr. John Stewart Service or Mr. John Paton Davies who were accused. of having lost China. Lest you believe that no such cases occurred in more recent years. I may recall-that there was, also a man in the early sixties who was suspected or accused of having lost Cuba and- for whom the American Foreign Service, Associations-of which I was a member of the board of directors-unsuccessfully intervened because the administration did not want to'give him any prominent assignment for fear of flak from hostile Senators'and Congressmen. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 It could have been easily certified for such a man that there was no prospective assignment for him-and out he would go. He, and others in his category, would be on an escalator to the guillotine, but it would not be his value to his country that would decide whether the blade would fall, but a political judgment whether he was controversial or an embarrassment. That, I submit, is coming very close to politicizing the senior ranks of the Foreign Service. Fearlessness at the bottom of the career pyramid is easy. Fearlessness at the top is sometimes also easy, par- ticularly when you approach retirement. But, fearlessness near the top, seeing how the heads roll of those who do not know how to make themselves agreeable to a. new adminis- tration, could be a very dangerous thing to a diplomatic career and is likely to give way to conformity. We need, and always need, a variety of iSenior Foreign Service officers, with widely divergent viewpoints. We need people who ask the inconvenient questions, who recall the things that others have forgotten or cannot remember because they haven't experienced them as a senior diplomat has. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would ask to put in a comment that comes to mind from testimony before a House committee by former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, a man for whom I have high respect. He endorsed the provision for the Senior Foreign Service. He endorsed wholeheartedly the idea that people would be on proba- tion at the top. And, I have no doubt that he did so because he felt that he was surrounded occasionally, when he was in the White House and on other occasions when he was in the State Department, by senior officers of the Foreign Service who did not share his enthusiasm for a particular policy, experienced officers, who did ask the inconvenient question, people who were the repository of things that had gone wrong in the past and brought these up as counter-arguments. Now, I do not say that a Secretary of State needs to surround him- self. with people uncongenial to him. Neither, however, should he be in a position to penalize such officers for views that they express. And, I think there is a natural tendency of a Secretary of State, of an, administration, of a President embarked on some major enter- prise-let us say, the war in Vietnam-a major enterprise that is very controversial, there is a natural tendency for these policy officers to surround themselves with people who are congenial to him, who are with it, who are young, who are enthusiastic, who really understand, and who don't ask those inconvenient questions. That is why I say, and I also perhaps put this more strongly in my letter to Senator Church, that such senior officers are a national asset which could be too easily discarded if the bill were enacted as it' is presently written. I now come to the final portion of my testimony. Theoretically, by shortening the time in grade at the top and certify- ing to the non-availability of onward assignments, by letting terms of able senior officers expire simply because they aren't showing enough positive loyalty, it would not take much time for some future Secretary of State, perhaps one who might be well-intentioned, but only weak and inclined to yield to pressure from Capitol Hill or the press or the White House, to decimate, indeed to decapitate the Senior Foreign Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 220 Service. This is an abuse that should not be allowed, that should be carefully guarded against in the legislation. Perhaps I may be permitted to add one final observation. I am, my- self, a member of the American Foreign Service Association. As already remarked, I was a member of its board of directors. At one time, I was even its vice chairman. I write frequently for the Foreign Service Association's organ, the Foreign Service Journal. I am in full sympathy with its principal goal, the protection and enhancement of professionalism in our di- plomacy. But, I do not regard it presently as fully representative of the Foreign Service, if only for demographic reasons : It has more young members than old ones. This is not a criticism, it is a statement of fact. Older officers, who now almost seem to be ashamed of being older and more experienced, are an endangered species in today's Foreign Service. Their percentage is constantly going down. But, it is a fact of life that to the younger officers, there are always too many older ones holding positions of responsibility. I felt the same way when I was young. I am not criticizing it. All I am saying is that the virtues of having a corps, a good proportion, of seasoned older officers. available and on hand to make their input into the policy-formulation process and its. execution-the virtues of that are not normally perceived by younger people or not perceived to the same extent by older people, I should say. That, I think, is why I have been encouraged by a number of older officers to come forward and make these observations about the pro- posed legislation which, coming from them, would seem self-serving. My career in the Foreign Service is behind me. It has been a good career. I think today's Service is excellent and should be protected against some' future ravages by irresponsible politicians. If my testimony has sensitized you. to that.danger, if I have been able to point out that the danger is not fanciful, then I have, perhaps, rendered a service not only to your committee, but also the Foreign Service that I love, including the younger officers who may be inclined to worry about testimony such as mine because it turns out to be in favor of lengthening the escalator to the guillotine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Ambassador Herz's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN F. HERZ In expressing my appreciation to your committee for allowing me to testify about one aspect of the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979, I wish to stress that I speak for no one but myself. I do not represent an organization. But the -4 ideas that I shall submit to you coincide with those of a number of senior officers of the Foreign Service who are still on active duty. I myself retired this year after 37 years of government service, five of them in the armed forces and over 32 in the Foreign Service. I entered the Foreign Service at the bottom, in 1946, by the examination route, and advanced step by step to Class 1, which I reached after 21 years. The most important position I attained was that of senior deputy assistant secretary of state. The most prestigious was that of ambassador to Bulgaria. The most un- pleasant, though not unrewarding to the inner man, was that of Minister-Coun- selor at the American embassy in Saigon, after the Tet offensive in 19168. I was not, incidentally, the first choice for that unpleasant position. I was offered it, and accepted, after one or two others had turned it down. I was amazed then, and am even more amazed now, that it should be possible in a disciplined Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 career service to turn down a responsible position just because it is extremely difficult or unpleasant. Mr. Chairman, I have perhaps a longer memory than my younger colleagues in the Foreign Service, and perhaps even than some of the members of this committee. There is no merit in this, for it is entirely a function of age. I happen to have lived through a period in our history when there was a sort of open season against senior Foreign Service officers. I am concerned that the proposed legislation will not only guard against a repetition of those dangerous days- dangerous not just to the Foreign Service but to the country-but that it will make it easier for a future Secretary of State to "decapitate" the Foreign Service through mass retirements of its most experienced and most valuable members. This is not a fantasy of mine. I have been there. I have seen it going on all around. I have seen friends and colleagues hounded out of the Service. I have seen loyal Foreign Service officers, who had been cleared again and again and again by the most rigorous security procedures, dismissed from the Service be- cause the Secretary of State, and those whom he had brought into the Department with him, did not share their views and their outlook, and because those po- litically appointed officials were subservient to others who would make the For- eign Service a scapegoat for our misfortunes and failures abroad. You may say that McCarthy was an isolated phenomenon that is not likely to be repeated. To this I would reply that it is a misreading of history to associate McCarthyism with only one man. There were a number of senators and repre- sentatives who shared his attitudes and who outlived him and who continued to do damage to the Service and whose views were given very much weight in the Executive Branch. It is thus not fanciful for me to look at the proposed legisla- tion from the point of view whether a future Secretary of State would be more, or less, able to root out of the Service people whom he might not like, whose po- litical views (real or imagined) he might not share, or whose presence in the Service might be an embarrassment to him in his relations with powerful mem- bers of the Congress. I find that there is serious ground for concern because the provision for limited appointments to the Senior Foreign Service is tailor-made for unscrupulous use against senior officers suspected of holding views divergent from those of an incoming new administration. It should be understood that I am not attributing to this Administration, cer- tainly not to the present Secretary of State, also not to the excellent career of- ficers who have worked on this legislation, any intention to open the way to some future inquisition or bloodbath of the senior Foreign Service. These are all honor- able men, inspired by the highest motives. What I question is the wisdom of enact- ing legislation which could be abused in a way that the framers of the legislation had not intended or envisaged. This involves a question of public policy-whether it is wise, even if some benefits would flow from a certain measure, to open the doors to possible abuse of those measures. I am proceeding in my testimony from the assumption that the wise course of action is to forego some minor advantages if there is a major danger that the purposes of the legislation could be perverted some time in the future under circumstances that we cannot at present foretell. At this point I would like to make a short digression-it is only a seeming digression. You who have devoted so much time to the Foreign Service and its problems and to this pending legislation, are of course aware of the weaknesses of a career diplomatic service in our political environment. Even when there are no accusations of disloyalty, or even treason, as occurred in the late forties and early fifties, it is fair to say, I think, that the Foreign Service does not enjoy a good press, that there are people, perhaps also in this House, who feel that there is something wrong with it, and that somehow the Service is "unrepresentative" of the United States. From this attitude, which I submit is quite widespread or at least latent in our society, it is not a very long way to distrusting the Foreign Service and associat- ing it with policies that one does not like. It is no secret, I think, that both the Kennedy and Nixon administrations came into office with a determination to place "their own men" at the top of the Department and into key positions abroad, because they distrusted the views and attitudes and orientation of the profession- als. What our Secretary of State called "positive loyalty", which he demanded from the Foreign Service, others would call conformity. And, I submit, conformity in the Foreign Service is a very dangerous thing because it is from the Foreign Service that the questions come that need to be asked, that the collective memory Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 222 of our diplomacy can assert itself, that the inconvenient counter-argument needs to originate. We need, in other words, a free play of ideas in the Department of State and the Foreign iService. Thank God we have it now. We have not always had it, and there is no reason to believe that it is foreordained that we shall always have it. We may lose it if we aren't careful. We have lost it before. The proposed legisla- tion does not protect it, on the contrary it endangers that free flow of ideas, which of course includes ideas of a contrary nature that another administration might not cherish. ? I believe that Section 602, which makes retention in the Senior Foreign Service a matter of the Secretary's appreciation of the "needs of the Service to plan for the continuing admission of new members" and Section 641, which allows the Secretary, by regulation, "to increase or decrease such maximum time for a class ... as the needs of the Service may require" opens the way to mass dismissals of Senior Foreign Service officers by some new administration that might be convinced that they all "lost China" or "lost Africa" or were "pinks" or "fascists" or otherwise uncongenial. What would Mr. Scott McLeod, whom Mr. Dulles brought into the State Department as his head of administration and security, and who was a friend and confidant of Senator McCarthy, have made of such a wide latitude given to a Secretary of State ! He would have reveled in it. He would have exploited it to the utmost to get rid of Foreign Service officers who were suspected not of being Communists but of being left-leaning, excessively liberal, wooly-minded do-gooders who didn't understand the reality of the threat. What might be the future policy in whose name another open season might be declared? Perhaps it might be on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But whatever end of the spectrum it might come from, it would be bad news for the country, for the freedom to express unpopular ideas, and for the principle that a professional career service is in any case the servant and not the master of foreign policy. Let me make clear what I meant by the last remark. I believe that it is, and was, profoundly mistaken to believe that Foreign Service officers represent political parties or political tendencies. The paranoid attitude, for instance of Mr. Ehrlichman, who saw the Nixon administration's foreign policy sapped by disloyal career public servants, was not justified. The Foreign Service loyally implemented Mr. Nixon's policies just as it had implemented those of his prede- cessor and his successors. It is a non-political service. But that is precisely what makes it so suspect in the eyes of some of the political chieftains in the White House. "Positive loyalty" is not, after all, so very far removed from the performance checks that have recently been ordered in the White House and which require loyalty, once more, to be checked out. It is only a relatively small step from getting someone's loyalty to evaluating his usefulness according to how much he or she agrees, or enthusiastically supports, certain policies. In other words, the danger is always present. It is only a matter of degree. So it is not so far-fetched to imagine that some future administration might want to make a clean sweep of the Senior Foreign Service because it is associated, in the minds of that new, incoming administration, with failures and idiocies or total benightedness, or worse-sympathy with our enemies, or inveterate blind- ness toward something that is particularly important to such an administration. George F. Kennan, in remarks that I request permission to include in the printed version of my testimony, stated the problem of the diplomat in a demo- cratic society in terms that are both insightful and graphic. He noted that "this diplomat has to recognize that he is himself something of an anomaly within the traditional structure of American government-something for which there is not, and could not be, any fully natural and accepted place. He is not politi- cally appointed-a circumstance which is sometimes a source of irritation, one suspects, for politicians, who see him. as preempting positions and salaries that might otherwise be used to reward political supporters." Moreover, as Kennan points out, the very qualities that make a diplomat effective in a foreign environment involve features of his appearance and manners and even thinking processes which are perceived as alien by his own society. "To many people in journalistic and political life," wrote Kennan, "this habitude du monde is particularly disturbing, because it seems to imply on the part of the professional diplomat a certain deliberate self-distancing from those great currents of mass reaction and emotion to which American society is uniquely vulnerable and by which journalists and politicians, above all others, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 are carried, of which they are the spokesmen, and in the reflection of which they find their inner security." In an earlier interview, of which I would also ask your permission to insert longer excerpts into the record, Kennan observed that journalists and legis- lators frequently "expect the FSO to be a sort of foreign exhibit of American virtues and mannerisms, as they themselves conceive them. They expect him to cultivate popularity and to use this popularity for the `selling' of American out- looks (rather than policies) to other peoples. They do not realize that his main tasks normally have to do with other governments rather than with peoples ; that his function is really that of an effective and unobtrusive inter- mediary, assuring the accuracy and usefulness of communication among govern- ments ; that he needs sometimes to take on something of the personal coloration, not just linguistically but in manners and way of thinking, of those with whom he has to communicate; that a strident and expansive Americanism is often an impediment in this respect ; and that in his quality as an effective intermediary he is bound, if he is to be useful, to acquire a certain inner detachment towards both sides, which does not imply any disloyalty to his own. I would submit that no one can long pursue the Foreign Service profession without acquiring a certain critical detachment towards the behavior and policies of all governments- including his own-a detachment which respects the prejudices and limitations of vision by which that behavior and those policies are often inspired, but does not necessarily share them." "Congress and the American public must ultimately choose," Kennan says in this passage of the interview, "either they want effective intermediaries, effec- tive executors of American policies abroad, and effective observers as well, in which case they have to tolerate a certain amount of cosmopolitanism in the personal make-up of these people, or they must be prepared to forego the advantages of a highly effective diplomatic arm." It will not have escaped you that the desirable characteristics that Kennan saw in a Foreign Service officer, come from "long pursuit" of the career. In other words, I am not at all sure that they are fully developed in the younger and more vigorous and less skeptical and more ambitious officers who so often strike the political leaders as more "with it," as sharing their own ideas more visibly and articulately, as being, in other words, "in step with the times." This is precisely what I am warning against, and I think it is not an excessive extrapolation from the remarks of Kennan that I have just read to you to say that he, too, sees merit in experience, in the acquisition of that skeptical detach- ment which does not come readily to younger people. Section 612 of the proposed legislation would make one of the criteria for promotion or retention in the Senior Foreign Service not only the usual per- formance evaluation reports, commendations, awards, reprimands, etc., but also "records of current and prospective assignments." What a strange ex- pression-records of prospective assignments. How can there be a record of a prospective assignment, except a notation that Mr. or Ms. X is in line for a new job, and that Mr. or Ms. Y does not have a job in prospect. What could not Mr. Scott McLeod, the agent of Senator Joe McCarthy in the State Department, have made with such a provision as it applied to, say, Mr. John Stewart Service or Mr. John Paton Davies who were accused of having "lost China." Lest you believe that no such cases occurred in more recent years, I may recall that there was also a man in the early sixties who was suspected or accused of having "lost Cuba" and for whom the American Foreign Service Association (of which I was then a member of the board of directors) unsuccess- fully intervened because the Administration did not want to give him any prominent assignment for fear of flak from hostile Senators and Congressmen; It could have been easily certified for such a man that there was no prospective assignment for him-and out he would go. He, and others in his category, would be on an escalator to the guillotine, but it would not be his value to his country that would decide whether the blade would fall, but a political judgment whether he was "controversial" or an embarrassment. That, I submit, is coming very close to politicizing the senior ranks of the Foreign Service. Fearlessness at the bottom of the career pyramid is easy. Fear- lessness at the top is sometimes also easy, particularly when you approach retirement. But fearlessness near the top, seeing how the heads roll of those who do not know how to make themselves agreeable to a new administration, could be a very dangerous thing to a diplomatic career and is likely to give way to conformity. We need, and will always need, a variety of senior Foreign Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Service officers, with widely divergent viewpoints. We need people who ask the inconvenient questions, who recall the things that others have forgotten or cannot remember because they haven't experienced them as a senior diplomat has. Thoretically, by shortening the time in grade at the top and certifying to the non-availability of onward assignments, by letting terms of able senior officers expire simply because they aren't showing enough "positive loyalty", it would not take much time for some future Secretary of State, perhaps one who might be well-intentioned but only weak and inclined to yield to pressure from Capitol Hill or the press or the White House, to decimate, indeed to decapitate the Foreign Service. This is an abuse that should not be allowed, that should be carefully guarded against in the legislation. Perhaps I may be permitted to add one final observation. I am myself a member of the American Foreign Service Association. As already remarked, I was a member of its Board of Directors. At one time I was even its Vice Chair- man. I write frequently for the Foreign Service Association's organ, the Foreign Service Journal. I am in full sympathy with its principal goal, the protection and enhancement of professionalism in our diplomacy. But I do not regard it presently as fully representative of the Foreign Service, if only for demographic reasons : It has more young members than old ones. This is not a criticism, it is a statement of fact. Older officers, who now almost seem to be ashamed of being older and more experienced, are an endangered species in today's Foreign Service. Their percent- age is constantly going down. But it is a fact of life that to the younger offi- cers, there are always too many older ones holding positions of responsibility. I felt the same way when I was young. I am not criticizing it. All I am saying is that the virtues of having a corps, a goodly proportion, of seasoned older officers available and on hand to make their input into the policy-formulation process and its execution-the virtues of that are not normally perceived by younger people. That, I think, is why I have been encouraged by a number of older officers to come forward and make these observations about the proposed legislation which, coming from them, would seem self-serving. My career in the Foreign Service is behind me. It has been a good career. I think today's service is ex- cellent and should be protected against some future ravages by irresponsible politicians. If my testimony has sentitized you to that danger, if I have been able to point out that the danger is not fanciful, then I have, perhaps, rendered a service not only to your committee but also the Foreign Service that I love, including the younger officers who may be inclined to worry about testimony such as mine because it tends to be in favor of lengthening the escalator to the guillotine. EXCERPT FROM "FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMAT" BY GEORGE F. KENNAN, IN THE WILSON QUARTERLY, WINTER 1977 [Secondly], this diplomat has to recognize that he is himself something of an anomaly within the traditional structure of American government-some- thing for which there is not, and could not be, any fully natural and accepted place. He is not politically appointed-a circumstance which is sometimes a source of irritation, one suspects, for politicians, who see him as preempting positions and salaries that might otherwise be used to reward political sup- porters. But he is also not, or at least should not be, a member of that great body of lower-level serving personnel known as the civil service, which con- stitutes the overwhelming majority of those, other than the political appointees, who serve the government. But between these two categories of people who work for the government-the political appointees and the domestic civil servants- there is no third category, familiar to American politicians and to public opin- ion generally, to which the Foreign Service could be assigned. With minor exceptions the United States has no tradition at all of a self- administered career service within the civilian (as distinct from the military) sector of government. To the extent, therefore, that the American Foreign Serv- ice remains a career service, immune to political appointment and resistant to control by the domestic civil service, it tends to become an object of bewil- derment and suspicion in the eyes of Congress, of the political parties, and of much of the press. And yet the legislators and the party politicians, in particu- lar, are precisely the people on whom the Foreign Service is of course depend- ent for its appropriations, its salaries, and the physical premises and facilities with which it has to work. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Underlying this organizational isolation, and in part explaining and reinforcing it, is an even more widespread and serious Foreign Service burden-namely, a deeply ingrained prejudice against people who give their lives professionally to diplomatic work. This prejudice operates within the political establishment in the first instance but also with much of the press and portions of the public. The late French ambassador, Jules Cambon, in the celebrated series of lec- tures he once delivered before the French Academie (published in 1926 under the title of Le Diplomate), observed that "democracies will always have am- bassadors and ministers; it remains to be seen whether they will have diplo- mats * * * [Diplomacy] is a profession that requires of those who practice it some cultivation and a certain habitude du monde [roughly : sophisticated view of the world]." But, he went on, to find people with these qualities, and to bring then together in a professional service, requires a certain process of selection ; and this, he thought, would always be disagreeable to democratic tastes because "democracies have a difficult time tolerating anything that resembles selection." However true these words might be with respect to other countries, they could not be more true of the United States, particularly at this time. We live, as we all know, in an age when egalitarianism is the prevailing passion, at least in many intellectual and political circles. We seem to stand in the face of a wide- spread belief that there is no function of public life that could not best be per- formed by a random assemblage of gray mediocrity. For people of selecting peo- ple for any governmental function on the basis of their natural suitability for that sort of work must be rejected; because to admit that some people might be more suitable than others would be an elitist thought-hense inadmissible. And not only is selection per se distasteful to many Americans, but the par- ticular qualities that would have to underlie any proper selection for profes- sional diplomacy are especially odious. The very idea of this habitude du monde of which Cambon spoke is repugnant to many because the experience essential to its acquisition is one that cannot be obtained within our society ; it can be obtained only by residence and work outside it. To many people in journalistic and political life this habitude du monde is particularly disturbing, because it seems to imply on the part of the professional diplomat a certain deliberate self-distancing from those great currents of mass reaction and emotion to which American society is uniquely vulnerable and by which journalists and politicians, above all others, are carried, of which they are the spokesmen, and in the reflection of which they find their inner security. To them, the outlook of the diplomatic professional is a challenge-all the more provoking because it is one they cannot meet on its own ground. And the result of this is that the diplomat comes only too easily to be viewed as a species of snobbish and conceited elitist, depays6, estranged from its own country and countrymen, giving himself airs, looking down upon his fellow citizens, fancying himself superior to them by virtue of his claim to an esoteric knowledge and expertise and which by the very fact of its foreign origin challenges the sound- ness and adequacy of their world of thought. And in this way there emerges, and finds partial acceptance, the familiar stereotype of the American diplomat as a somewhat effeminate, rather Anglicized figure (the British are usually made victims of our inferiority complexes), as a person addicted to the false attractions of an elegent European social life, usually to be found at parties, attired in striped pants, balancing a teacup, and nursing feelings of superiority towards his own country as he attempts to in- gratiate himself with the hostesses and the officials of another one. The fact that there is no substance for this stereotype-the fact that what little sub- stance it might once have had passed out of our lives decades ago, the fact that this particular professional dedication involves today a great deal of hard work, much discomfort, much loneliness, a dedication to the service of the nation far beyond what most people at home are ever asked to manifest, and, last but not least, in many instances no small amount of danger-all this is of no avail. The stereotype exists. It persists. It is gratifying to many egos. It will not soon be eradicated. The multiplicity of critics and detractors of the American Foreign Service would not be so serious, perhaps, if it were balanced by any considerable body of defenders ; but this, unhappily, is not the case. The Department of State, which theoretically controls the Service and ought properly to defend it, has neither the ability nor the will to act very effectively in this direction. The ability is lacking because, of all the departments and agencies of the United States, the Department of State is perhaps the only one that has no domestic constituency-no sizable body of the citizenry, that is, which understands its Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 functions and is concerned for it, no special interest groups who stand to profit by its activity and are ready to bring pressure to bear on Congress on its be- half. Lacking these things, it has little domestic influence. And the State De- partment's own will to defend the Service is also often lacking, because the Department is normally headed and administered by people without foreign- service experience-sometimes even by people who share the very prejudices and failures of understanding just referred to. EXCERPT FROM "AN INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE F. KENNAN" BY JOHN F. CAMPBELL, IN FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL, AUGUST, 1970. Question. When men like the late 'Senator Joseph McCarthy attack the Foreign Service for "disloyalty", isn't their main objection really that the 'Service is or something of an intellectual elite and its members pick up eccentric and "un- American" habits from spending most of their lives mixing with foreigners and living abroad? Isn't this the real reason many congressmen can't stand the State Department? KENNAN. YeS, I think there is, most unfortunately, a conflict between the qualities of character and personality that are most effective in the Foreign Service and those that most commend themselves to some people in Congress and, in general, to the American press. In part, this arises from a suspicion on the part of congressmen and journalists that people so subtly different from themselves cannot fully respect them and must in some way be looking down on them. But there is also the fact that very few people in our domestic life-almost none, in fact, even among the most ex- perienced journalists and legislators-have any proper understanding of the real function and 'requirements of the Foreign Service. They expect the FSO to be a sort of foreign exhibit of the American virtues and mannerisms, as they them- selves conceive them. They expect him to cultivate popularity and to use this popularity for the "selling" of American outlooks (rather than policies) to other peoples. They do not realize that his main tasks normally have to do with other governments rather than with peoples ; that his function is really that of an ef- fective and unobtrusive intermediary, assuring the accuracy and usefulness of communication among governments ; that he needs sometimes to take on some- thing of the personal coloration, not just linguistically but in manners and way of thinking, of those with whom he has to communicate ; that a strident and expansive Americanism is often an impediment in this respect ; and that in his quality of an intermediary he is bound, if he is to be useful, to acquire a certain inner detachment towards both sides, which does not imply any disloyalty to his own. I would submit that no one can long pursue the Foreign Service profes- sion without acquiring a certain critical detachment towards the behavior and policies of all governments-including his own-a detachment which respects the prejudices and limitations of vision by which that behavior and those policies are often inspired, but does not necessarily share them. Congress and the Amer- ican public must ultimately choose, either they want effective intermediaries, effective executors of American policies abroad, and effective observers as well, in 'which case they have to tolerate a certain amount of cosmopolitanism in the personal make-up of these people, or they must be prepared to forgo the advan- tages of a highly effective diplomatic arm. s It is a great pity that this touch of cosmopolitanism (it is generally very slight) is so often taken for effeminacy or lack of affection for one's own coun- try. It is a poor sort of manliness that has:to document itself by expansive and boisterous behavior ; this latter, in fact, is usually the mark of inner insecurity and uncertainty. And the variety of patriotism which has never known ex- 4 posure to the challenge of different ways of thought and behavior is not neces- sarily the strongest form of patriotism. One thinks, here, of Milton's words (from the Areopagitica) : "I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out 'of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat." I am afraid that before many Americans can hope to have a really effective Foreign 'Service, they will have to overcome certain forms of narrowness and provincialism in their own attitude towards the tasks and requirements of For- eign Service work. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Qucstion. Franklin Roosevelt seemed to have very little use for the Foreign Service. American diplomats were not consulted about most of the major wartime decisions, and Roosevelt traveled to Casablanca and Yalta without senior State Department advisers. He once wrote in a memorandum that the successful di?plo- prat is "a man who is loyal to the Service, who does not offend people and who does not get intoxicated at public functions." Was it Roosevelt's personal tem- perament that made him avoid diplomatic advice, or was it the feeling that a President can never be sure of receiving from professional diplomats the kind of intense loyalty he gets from his political supporters? IiENNAN. I am not sure of that answer to this question. 'Sometimes the reluc- tance to recognize any virtue in the Foreign Service officer's expertise conceals a painful awareness of one's own lack of it. In FDR's case, I think there was something personal, as well. He disliked social prominence and pretension ; and he probably associated these things with the Foreign Service. He had little or no understanding for a disciplined, hierarchical organization. He had a highly personal view of diplomacy, imported from 'his domestic political triumphs, and great confidence in his personal ability to wheedle anybody into anything. His approach to problems of foreign policy was basically histrionic, with the Amer- ican political public as his audience. Foreign Service officers were of little use to him in this respect. His taste was for the dilettante, and he liked boldness in the people around him. He disliked cautious, experienced men ; and it is true that a Foreign 'Service officer, since he is a professional, has the same kind of caution bred of experience that a good doctor or lawyer has. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, indeed, for very intelligent testimony and for very intelligent points. I think one has to have actually experienced the days of McCarthyism to be able to recall it with the vividness that one should. And, I believe and I trust that the Department of State has representatives here who, as they are looking through section 612, will keep your testimony in mind. I must say it would seem to me that a selection board, if one wanted to cozy up to the Secretary of State, could really raise havoc with Foreign Service officers who had views counters to those of the ad- ministration. I also remember being at the environmental conference in Stock- holm, Sweden, a few years ago, and the chilling effect the presence of Mr. Erlichman had on the free expression of views of people in that delegation when they met and expressed the thought that we were en- gaged in environmental warfare in Vietnam. That was absolutely con- sidered disloyal to say and, yet, it was a fact and we have recognized that fact since then. And, we are now in the process of ratifying a treaty that will prevent environmental modifications as a means of warfare. And, as times change, I think the people in the career service should be given protection for their own views as long as they are loyal serv- ants to the Government. In connection with performance pay where some Foreign Service officers will get higher pay than others, which will necessitate a new burden for selection boards to figure out which ones will get it-some- what like paying one major general extra pay as opposed to another major general or as opposed to the present system which is very much the same in the Foreign Service as in the military where the carrot is the prospect of better assignment and promotion and where the stick is the thought of not being promoted and passed over, which, I think, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 seems to work fairly effectively-I was wondering what your views were on that, Ambassadore Herz. Ambassador Huxz. Mr. Chairman, I believe the intention of those who support performance pay is simply to make sure that Foreign Service officers would be adequately compensated. The CHAIRMAN. Forgive me, I don't think that is the reason. I think the reason is to encourage their performance. But, the adequate compensation is provided for by the salary and living allowances theoretically. Ambassador Hnnz. Thank you, sir. I completely agree that this should be the main concern. Adaquate pay, I think is-I just wish to say what my comments on performance pay should not by any means be interpreted as directed against adequate compensation for Senior Foreign Service officers. I don't believe they are adequatly compensated now. I think means should be found to compensate them adequately. Whether the allow- ance is due, that is another question.. At any rate, I don't think that should be the main consideration when one is considering the concept of performance pay. Using your parallel, Senator, of generals, and not wishing to use examples of recent wars, I would say that Hanibal would probably have gotten performance pay for crossing the Alps, but as for Fabius Maximus cunctator-the Roman Senate would surely have withheld performance pay from him because he would have been regarded as a timid general who was not using properly agressive tactics against the enemy. Fabius Maximus defeated Hannibal, but defeated him after a long campaign in which his feints, his retreats, his failure to have an immediate showdown with him, were the essence of his strategy. I don't see how, using the Foreign Services as a realistic case. the "general" in the Foreign Service who avoids the showdown will be as easily rewarded or as easily recognized as deserving reward as the one who has it out, who creates the crisis and "solves the crisis," because he will be regarded as the activist, as a man who has really worked hard. Whereas, in fact, the other man may have worked harder, more intelligently and in the long run with better effect. Using another parallel from the field of my wife, who is a doctor, I imagine if performance pay were given to doctors in a hospital, the doctor who successfully performs a triple bypass heart operation would be entitled to performance pay, but the internist who so manages the patient that he does not need a triple bypass operation, would probably not get performance pay. What I am pointing out is that it is very difficult to see how this provision can be equitably enforced. And, I would again wish to close my remarks on the subject by saying ways should be found so that responsible representatives in the Foreign Service who are representing the United States abroad or who are in important policymaking positions in Washington, should be adequately compensated. These are people who carry enormous loads and who certainly deserve to be put in a position not inferior to people in the civil service who get substantial compensation. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 229 CONCERN FOR NEEDED MANPOWER The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. I think all the salaries should be in- creased, but does the thought of even the paperwork involved in set- ting up the selection boards, however they would do it, to reward people with these added little pay bonuses, that in itself would use up a good deal of manpower. Does that concern you at all? Ambassador HERZ. I am worried by that, but am more worried by the unseemliness of the kind of competition you would get for per- formance pay. It is even today, at least when I was still in the service, difficult sometimes when you read a telegram from a chief of mission in the field, perhaps in some trouble spot, to know whether it was written because he wishes to make a record or whether it was written because he thought that what he was saying made the most sense. This is a human frailty which is normal, I think, in most profes- sions. But, we should be careful not to exacerbate that human frailty when it is coupled with the desire for increased material recognition. The CHAIRMAN. Going back to your analogy of doctors, I sometimes get worried under the present system whether a doctor, if he suddenly finds he needs a new garage or something of that sort, would have a tendency perhaps to perform a hysterectomy whereas you go into the Kaiser plan where the doctor gets no more, then you find the number of hysterectomies, and so forth, vastly reduced. I am thinking here of a Foreign Service officer who needs a new garage. He might not want to antagonize his boss with a specific rec- ommendation if he thought that nice pay bonus is going to go down the drain. I think this also can enter into it alit. Ambassador HERZ. I think, Senator, you are going too far in that respect. I am not sure that the monetary incentive would, in practice, turn out to be the important thing because it is monetary. But what you are doing, if you approve the provision for incentive pay, is starting an entirely new round of competition among Service officers. Now, if this were for a particularly attractive medal publicly dis- played, I am not sure that this would not be equally bad, quite aside from the question of whether it is money. But you are creating a new set of hierarchies. This ambassador has gotten $10,000 more because of the way he handled a crisis in Groustark, now what can I do to be his equal, how to surpass him? The CHAIRMAN. First, create a crisis in Groustark and then resolve it. Ambassador HERZ. I am more worried about that than the garage that needs to be fixed or replaced. The CHAIRMAN. I think you have an excellent point. I would love to go on all morning with you, old friend, but I think it assists and move on to our next witness, the honorable Sheldon B. Vance, former Ambassador to Chad and Zaire. I notice you have a very long statement, which will appear in full in the record. If you can digest it, it would be appreciated. [Ambassador Vance's biography follows:] BIOGRAPHY OF AMBASSADOR SHELDON B. VANCE Sheldon B. Vance has been practicing law in Washington, D.C., in the firm of Vance & Joyce, since his retirement, February 28, 1977, from the Foreign Service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 His 34 years in the American Foreign Service included almost seven years as Ambassador, three in a position comparable to Assistant Secretary, and four and a half as a Deputy Chief of Mission. He retired with the personal rank of Career Minister. His posts included embassies in Brazil, Ethiopia, Chad and Zaire, in the latter two as Chief of Mission. He also served at two consulates in France and had four tours of duty at home in the Department of State. The latter included as- signments as the desk officer for Belgium and Switzerland, Chief Personnel Placement Officer for Africa, Director of the Office of Central African Affairs, a Senior Inspector, and the Executive Secretary of the President's Cabinet Com- mittee on International Narcotics Control. In the latter position, he was also Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State and Coordinator of Foreign Narcotics Control. He had a nine month academic assignment to the Department of State's Senior Seminar in Foreign Policy and served as the African Affairs Advisor to our U.N. General Assembly delegation in 1968. He served twice on Department of State Selection Boards, once as Chairman. Born in Minnesota on January 18, 1917, he obtained his BA from Carleton College and his J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is married. STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON B. VANCE, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO CHAD AND ZAIRE Ambassador VANCE. I intend to attempt orally to summarize my prepared statement, briefly. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to express my appreciation for the privilege of addressing this committee this morning on a subject of great interest and concern to me, based upon the 34 years I spent in the Foreign Service until I voluntarily retired about 3 years ago. The CHAIRMAN. When did you enter the service, what year? Ambassador VANCE. 1942. During that period, I was Ambassador to two different countries. I later held a position equivalent to an Assistant Secretary of State. I was promoted to the personal rank of Career Minister before retiring. And, I have held just about every type of assignment that is available in the Foreign Service, including personnel management and assignment to the inspection corps. The importance of the Foreign Service to the Republic need not I think be emphasized in this body. I see it as playing two 'basic roles. One, as giving foreign policy advice with all appropriate candor to the President and the Secretary of State and once foreign policy is decided, assisting them in implementing it. Two dangers threatened by the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 concern me. The first has been addressed very eloquently by my friend and former colleague, Ambassador Martin Herz, which is to assure that the Foreign Service in the future gives its advice to its seniors with all appropriate candor. The second, which was also addressed by Ambas- sador Herz, is that the accumulated experience and wisdom of the Foreign Service be protected. However I wish to emphasize that this protection should be afforded in reasonable balance with the equally essential up or out principle that has governed the Foreign Service since the Foreign Service Act of 1946. I would like to talk to these two points in that order. One, I think that candor is threatened by several provisions in the present act. The provision that concerns me the most is.the creation of performance pay for the proposed Senior Foreign Service, which mirrors or paral- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 lels or copies the Civil Service Reform Act of last year and the Senior Executive Service. And, as you, Mr. Chairman, have yourself suggested, there is a world of difference between the two services. And what is applicable to the one is not necessarily applicable to the other. The CHAIRMAN. Along that line would you think that the Foreign Service should be allied more with the Civil Service or with the mili- tary service? Ambassador V ANCR. I would like to develop that thought a little further, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Amongst the factors that should be clearly understood, I think, in the proposal of performance pay is that competition for that cash bonus would be open even to ambassadors of career service and to assistant secretaries, even to the Under Secretary of State if he hap- pens to be a career officer and wishes to participate. Also, the old rule that no officer at a given post may be paid more than the chief of mission would be breached by this performance pay idea. We are told by management that performance pay will be awarded by the selection boards and management suggests that selection boards can assure that these rewards will be made equitably. However, I would like to say the following, speaking from the experience of a number of assignments to selection boards and a considerable knowl- edge of how they function. I believe that the Foreign Service evaluation system is the best that has been developed thus far in our Government. However, it cannot, in my opinion, be finely tuned sufficiently to be able to make an annual decision of a cash bonus in an equitable fashion. The great temptation for our officers will be to reduce candor in order to encourage the most favorable possible recommendations from one's immediate boss each year. These awards are not like promotions, which, once attained, continue to be enjoyed. These are annual awards. I want to underline also for this committee, Mr. Chairman, that this new idea has not yet even been tried in the Civil Service. I have seen press reports stating that personnel managers in the Civil Service have expressed dismay as to how they are going to be able to administer this strange new notion. The Civil Service is, as the committee knows, a rank-in job serv- ice. And, one cannot get promoted no matter how well one does unless you get another kind of job that has a higher rank. This, as the chair- man well knows, is not true of the Foreign Service nor of the military where rank is in person and good performance can be rewarded and is rewarded by promotion. As the chairman has suggested, if such cash awards for performance are appropriate for the Foreign Service, why not for our military services? 'I understand that our Air Force tried something like per- formance pay and abandoned it. Quite simply, it is not appropriate to seek a cash bonus for doing one's duty. I cannot speak for the Civil Service, but I can assure the committee from my experience that the Foreign Service does not need a cash encouragement to do its best. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 The position on performance pay of the American Foreign Serv- ice Association is, if I understand it correctly, the following: 'as the professional or trade union representative of the Foreign Service as a whole, it cannot appropriately try to block the opportunity of members to earn more money. I agree that the Foreign Service, at all classes, should receive more compensation, but the idea of the proposed performance pay is cer- W tainly not, in my opinion, the way to go about it. The chairman mentioned that a ,Senior Foreign 'Service officer might want a new garage and he would set out to do everything possible to gain a performance pay award in order to pay for it. That unhappy ` supposition could occur. But, it would not be something on which that officer could base the family budget or decide to send junior to that school instead of this one, because the bonus would be good only for 1 year. This is not an answer to the need of the Foreign Serv- ice for more remuneration. It has been suggested, I believe, by management witnesses that the Foreign Service generally supports performance pay. I would like to make the following statement. Although I am today speaking solely for myself, being a retired officer, when this bill was first proposed, I volunteered my services to the Foreign Service Association, of which I have long been a member. For my pains-perhaps another example of the old saw that one should never volunteer-I wound up the chairman of one of the task forces established by the Foreign Service Association to examine the impact of this new legis- lative proposal on the Foreign Service. The task force I chaired was the one that looked at the bills impact on the senior ranks. Our task force included 11 members. We consulted hundreds of For- eign Service officers of all ranks in the active service. We also studied the airgrams and telegrams that came in from the field from virtually every one of our posts commenting on the various aspects of this pro- posed new legislation. My reading of these, and my conclusions from these studies, from this total exposure, is that the idea of performance pay is not one that is welcomed by the service as a whole. I think most Foreign Service officers of all ranks are uncomfortable with it. A larger number would swallow it for reasons of the possibility of additional money. But, it would still, in my judgment, be a minority. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a copy of that report? Ambassador VANCE. Of the task force? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Ambassador VANCE. Yes; I do. The CHAIRMAN. That will be incorporated into the record without objection. Ambassador VANCE. I would like to add that there have been a number of changes made in the draft legislation since we wrote that report. So, its pertinence is perhaps not as wide as it might be. But, it certainly supports what I said with regard to performance pay. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. [The information referred to follows :1 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1979. KENNETH N. ROGERS, Esquire, Chairman, State Standing Committee, American Foreign Service Association, c/o Department of State, Washington, D.C. DEAR KEN : I have the honor to submit the report of our task force on "The Senior Service", for your transmittal to Management as part of the Associa- tion's overall response to Management's proposals on Foreign Service personnel reform. The members of the task force included the following officers other than myself : Marshall P. Adair, FSO-5; Michael H. B. Adler, FSR-1 (AID) M. Lyall Breckon, FSO-2; Peter S. Bridges, FSO-1; Richard Hecklinger, FSO-4; Ivan Izenberg, FSIO-2 (ICA) ; Edward W. Lollis, FSO-3; Wade Matthews, FSO-2; James R. Ruchti, FSO-1; Moncrieff J. Spear, FSO-1. Our task was made far easier by the remarkable degree of agreement we have found among Foreign Service officers on basic Service problems. Respectfully submitted, SHELDON B. VANCE, Chairman, Career Minister, Retired. This task force, and AFSA through its consultations with officers in Washing- ton and in the field, have found deep concern among members of the Foreign Service that recent years have seen a serious erosion of the basic "up or out" principle underlying the Foreign Service Act of 1946-but an overwhelming belief among members of the Service that a massive revision of this Act, as pro- visionally proposed by Management, is not the way to proceed. Vigorous imple- mentation of the "up or out" principle is vital to the overall effectiveness of the corps of 3400 Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) who have formed the heart of the American Foreign Service since the Foreign Service was first created as our career diplomatic and consular service by the Rogers Act of 1924. (Much of what is set forth in this paper is applicable also to the Foreign Service In- formation Officers of ICA, and to senior levels of State Department Foreign Service Reserve and Staff Officers, whose future structure is also discussed in a separate report.) The basic legislation under which the FSO corps operates today is the For- eign Service Act of 1946. This Act, which as emphasized in the 1946 House of Representatives report "was written by departmental and Foreign Service of&- cers working together", has with relatively few amendments provided a flexible system which has maintained strict intake and promotion standards, permitting successive postwar Administrations to name from the FSO corps two-thirds or more of our Ambassadors, as well as a varying number of Presidential appoint- ments in the Department. The FSO corps also fills most of the other officer-level positions in our Embassies, Missions and Consultates abroad and, since the re- form authored by the Wriston Commission two decades ago. FSOs have filled most officer-level positions in the Department in Washington. Beyond this, a number of FSOs are assigned temporarily to other Federal agencies, to staff positions in the Congress, to State and local governments, and to universities and non-profit organizations, in accordance with Sections 571 and 576 of the Act. Thus a Service destined primarily to represent this country's foreign interests also enjoys a unique assignment flexibility at home, which benefits both the Federal service and individual officers' career development. 1. Management's analysis.-The Department's management has stated, in its proposals of February 13, 1979 entitled "Proposed Foreign Service Act", that Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 major change is necessary to correct defects in the present Foreign Service sys- tem, and that "The most important defect in the existing FS system is the seriously impacted situation at senior personnel levels which has caused severe restrictions and distortions at all levels affecting intake, promotion, and assign- ments with consequent career frustrations, uncertainties, and morale prob- lems." In suggesting possible remedies for the situation it describes, Management has emphasized the basic difference between the Civil Service and the highly mobile, rank-in-person Foreign Service which is called on to accept assignment anywhere in the world. Nevertheless, Management insists that the greater the comparability between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, the greater the benefits to the Department and its employees ; it believes that innovative features of the recent Civil Service Reform Act "should, therefore, be drawn on or paralleled where that would be advantageous to the FS." Furthermore, Man- agement has argued for a major piece of new legislation, warning that "a piece- meal approach limited to a few changes in the Act of 1.946 will not enable us to achieve this important reaffirmation of the unique and essential role of the Foreign Service." 2. AFSA's analysis.-Our analysis, as well as the critique and proposed alter- natives which follow, reflects views widely held within the Service insofar as we have been gble to determine them through a careful process of consultation. The members of the task force have reviewed a' large number of cables and letters received from AFSA chapters and individual officers abroad; they have listened to the views expressed at open meetings which AFSA has held in Washington ; they have sought the private views of officers assigned in Washington, including a number of widely respected senior officers holding senior positions. Senior officers of AID and ICA served on the task force and contributed valuable in- sights gained in part from interviews with officers in their agencies. We have not found perfect unanimity among the officers of the Service, but we found an impressive similarity of views. Basically, we agree with Management that there is a "seriously impacted situation at senior personnel levels". Unfortunately Management has not supplied any analysis of this situation. The root causes of this situation in our view are the following : (1) The decision of the,Department Management in 1976 to lengthen time-in- class maximums for senior officers, which has significantly slowed attrition at the top and, because of the "cascade" effect, thereby preyented promotion of perhaps seventy officers through the ranks in 1978; (2) The very low recent rates for selection-out for sub-standard performance, after the Department was required by a 1975 court decision to provide a greater element of due process-rates which may admittedly be difficult to raise ; (3) The low recent voluntary retirement rate for senior officers, due to the early-1977 pay raise which has led individuals to delay retirement until they can cclculate pensions on a higher 3-year average; (4) The recent temporary halt to mandatory retirement at 60, after a lower court decision which the Supreme Court has now overturned 8-1 in Vance v. Bradley-a halt which is however sought anew in a bill introduced by Congress- man Pepper ; (5) Non-use of Section 519 of the Act, which calls for mandatory retirement of an FSO who has not been reassigned after serving as chief of mission ; (6) Over-use of "stretch" assignments of mid-grade officers to senior positions, which in moderation is a useful management tool ; (7) Finally, the decision of the current Administration to increase the number of political, non-career appointments to senior positions in the Department of State. This flies in the face of Jimmy Carter's praise of the Foreign Service in Why Not the Best and his indication that he would end non-merit diplomatic appointments. It is true that about three-quarters of American Ambassadors are now drawn from the career service, a slightly higher percentage than in previous Administrations, but no other major country makes more than a tiny handful of ambassadorial appointments from non-career rank ; most major countries make none. Furthermore, about 55 percent of ranking positions in the State Depart- ment (deputy assistant secretary and above) are now filled by political ap- pointees ; and political appointees have been named to office-director positions which had been filled by career officers in previous Administrations. In the last Administration there was only one political appointee and 13 career officers among Assistant Secretaries of State (including the heads of CA, INR and PM) ; now these positions are filled by 8 political appointees and only 7 career officers ! Who can dispute that this affects the "impacted situation at senior personnel levels" Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 which even the Department's management calls "the most important defect in the existing FS system"? Aside from "impaction", we believe that the Service faces other serious prob- lems not addressed in Management's proposals. Among these are : (a) A decreasing substantive role for the Foreign Service. As the roles of the NSC staff, other Departments and agencies, and non-career personnel in the Department in formulating and executing foreign policy have expanded, partici- pation by the career Service has declined proportionately. As successive Ad- ministrations have tended more and more to send delegations (often interagency ones) overseas for important discussions, rather than rely on communication through Embassies, the sense of serving ceremonial and facilitative, rather than substantive, functions has increased in Foreign Service posts. This effect varies by functional sector and "cone." But declining job satisfaction is widespread, and the trend has been downward for some time. (b) The decrease in the Service's materials compensation, due to the drastic decline in the dollar vis-a-vis many currencies as well as inflation (which we share with other citizens, but which is better compensated for in private business). (c) Family stress in the Foreign Service, which has increased, in part as a result of change in American society which can have a particular effect on the Service. For example, spouses are offered expanding opportunities for satisfying employment in the US, and are often understandably loath to leave a good job An Washington to assume household and ornamental functions, overseas. Foreign Service parents are understandably concerned about the need to send teen-aged children away to boarding schools, a need which has expanded with the opening of posts in cities where no English-language. secondary schools exist. (d) The decade-old division of FSOs into political, economic/commercial, con- sular, and administrative "cones" which was made without adequate consulta- tion or sufficient analysis of Service needs. The cone system turned most officers to increased specialization ; it has brought benefits, and undoubtedly our Service does have need of specialization ; but in the view of the task force the present system is too crude and inflexible, and has not only unnecessarily divided the Service but has impeded the development of officers who, if they are to reach the top of the Service, are supposed to have mastered all areas of foreign-affairs work. B. MANAGEMENT'S PROPOSED REMEDIES Management proposes to improve the senior levels of the Foreign Service by instituting a "senior threshold" selection process and creating a "Senior Foreign Service" inspired by the new Senior Executive Service created by the Civil Service Reform Act. The top rank of the Senior Foreign Service, called "Minis- ter" and equivalent to the present class of Career Minister, would serve on a three-year appointment renewable on a basis of the Department's overall needs and Selection Boards' recommendations on individuals. (Renewable contracts would also be instituted for senior specialist officers, presumably non-FSOs. ) The next two ranks, designated "Minister-Counselors"' and "Counselors" and equivalent to present FSO-1 and FSO-2, would have "shorter than current time-in-class limits". The three SFS ranks (and possibly lower ranks, in time) would be eligible for special performance pay, modeled on similar provisions for the Senior Execu- tive Service, to be awarded on the recommendation of Selection Boards. Al- though Management's proposals of February 13 state that performance pay could be awarded to up to half of the "Senior Foreign Service", the Department Notice of March 27 (sent to the field as State telegram 76373) on the Staff Corps-but presumably applicable in this regard to FSOs-states that "The money for performance pay for each Selection Board category * * * would be the same as currently available for merit step increases, but rather than being distributed to everyone, it would be awarded on the basis of performance." This necessarily indicates that performance pay awards must be very limited in either numbers or amounts. In addition, Management proposes to bring about a radical change in promo- tion procedures at both senior and lower levels by furnishing to Selection Boards, which currently work only on a basis of officers' performance files, Management's recommendations on individuals' suitability for promotion. Management also states that it would continue the "valuable career develop- ment practice" of assigning outstanding mid-career officers to senior jobs, and that the exchange of senior officers with other agencies "would be encouraged". Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 These are in each case simply reaffirmations of existing practices and not new proposals. O. AFSA CRITIQUE OF MANAGEMENT REMEDIES With exceedingly few exceptions, members of the Foreign Service have as individuals and through AFSA chapters expressed their strong opposition to any comprehensive legislative re-design of the FSO corps. They have strongly ex- pressed the need for caution, and for thorough consultation with the Service, before attempting to replace the 1946 Act of which has proven an excellent, flexible tool for the management of the Service. They have pointed out that management has not used the tools available to it to confront the "impacted situation" ; they have expressed their doubts that this situation is in any sense a structural defect requiring new legislation. Among cables received from many posts, officers of a major Embassy in Europe have suggested that the manage- ment proposals are intended as a substitute for "the responsibility and self- discipline which management has failed to exercise." The officers of an Embassy in Central America have noted that the management proposals are argued largely on the basis of the Civil Service Reform Act, which is the first such intended reform of that Service in 60 years while the Foreign Service's basic legislation is postwar and its reforms since then numerous ; they say that the Foreign Service should not "suffer the indignity of yet another major overhaul for the sake of change alone, unless real benefits, which are not apparent, are to be found." A number of officers have contrasted Management's present proposals, drafted without consultation with the Service, with the coordinated, cooperative venture which resulted in the 1946 Act. An additional reason to avoid structural change intended to ease the "impacted situation" is that data available to the task force indicate that this situation may ease appreciably within the next year even if Management fails to take any action, structural or otherwise. For instance, we understand that in February 1980, three years after top salaries were raised to $47,500, a total of 429 senior FSOs, or roughly two-thirds of the total, will be eligible to retire on this new "high-3" basis. All in all, the basic Service criticism of Management's proposal for a "Senior Foreign Service" is that it seems to lack justification other than a desire to create a structure outwardly similar to the Senior Executive Service. Such a structure is totally unnecessary in order to carry out needed reforms. A number of officers have also questioned why Management has chosen the rank-in-job Civil Service for a model, while failing to look for possible inspiration at the other main rank- in-person services ; the military services which, as the Supreme Court has re- minded us in Vance v. Bradley, were with good reason closely studied and drawn on by the framers of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. Many have also questioned whether it makes sense to imitate a recent innovation in the Civil Service which may conceivably not live up to expectations, and which in any case is intended to create for the Civil Service the kind of broadly-experienced, broadly-assignable senior executives which the Foreign Service already possesses. As noted above, Sections 571 and 576 of the 1946 Act as amended already provide authority under which FSOs can be assigned to a wide range of agencies and institutions. The system works ; for example, in the present Administration FSOs have held senior positions in a range of other agencies including CIA, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Treasury. Further Service criticism is directed at Management's intention to provide Se- lection Boards with recommendations as to which officers should be promoted. The task force shares the view that this is a most unwise proposal, subject to political manipulation, and believes that the Foreign Service 'Selection Board system provides what is probably the fairest and most equitable system of merit promotion in the Federal service. Since officers are promoted on the basis of boards' rankings, Management cannot always raise up by direct action those officers which it believes best ; but it does so indirectly by assigning them above their rank to key jobs which, if they do well, will surely win them high board ranking ; meanwhile, the impartial board review helps ensure that the officer in Madras or in Wichita gets as fair a deal as an Under Secretary's favorite. The idea of feeding to selection boards Management's ideas as to who should be pro- moted not only flies in the face of our merit principles but is inherently foolish, since an independent selection board might deliberately low-rank an officer urged on it by management. Furthermore, although Management would make its Board recommendations available to the individual officer, the result would undoubtedly Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 be a high rate of grievance actions to remove these assessments from files, and increased distrust of the promotion system. This is not to say that the present evaluation system could not be improved ; it could ; see Section D below. Many officers have criticized the still vague proposal for performance pay. The task force has given this question close attention; the senior ranks (and not only the senior ranks) of the Foreign Service are under-paid, and any proposal to allow at least a few FSOs to raise their pay from $47,500 to $66,000 obviously deserves a good look. Several considerations apply. The Foreign Service, unlike the Civil Service, has a considerable percentage of senior officers in Presidential appointments, to which separate non-career salaries apply. Would an FSO serving in a Presidential appointment be eligible for performance pay? If so, would it not be better management for the President to award the premium pay, rather than a Department selection board? If not, would it be good management for an office director to be able to earn more than the Ambassador to France? The vast majority of officers would strongly oppose the use of money from regular step increases for performance pay. We would emphasize that the legis- lative basis for step increases in the Foreign Service is quite different from that of the Civil Service. Section 625 of the Foreign Service Act presently provides an annual step increase for any officer whose services meet Service standards, and possible additional increases for especially meritorious service. Some officers have expressed concern that the intended performance-pay sys- tem runs entirely against the valid concept of the senior FSO corps as a uniquely valuable group of public servants, most (though admittedly not all) of whom render extraordinary service. If management should intend to make performance pay available for a high percentage of senior officers, this concern would be allayed ; but a system awarding performance pay to as low a percentage as is intended for the SES would be a negative judgment on the worth of the Foreign Service. As noted above in Section B, available information indicates that the percentage receiving extra pay would in fact be very small. It must also be emphasized that if a performance pay system should be judged advisable for the Foreign Service, it need not be conditioned in any way on introduction of a "Senior Foreign Service" proposal. The performance-pay idea cannot "sell" the rest of the SFS idea to members of the Service. Finally, the task force notes that a large number of officers have expressed their overall objection to the notion of performance pay, simply on grounds that the concept is alien and demeaning to the Foreign Service. Performance pay may be a valuable tool to elicit outstanding performance from a Civil Service officer for whom a salary increase is impossible unless his or her job is upgraded. That situation does not apply in the rank-in-person Foreign Service, whose officers are not locked into a job with a particular salary. The task force agrees that premium pay will not necessarily produce better performance by a Service which is highly motivated and hard-working. The question is rather whether Manage- ment (and the Congress) can do a better job of supplying better overall com- pensation to a Service which, as noted in Section A above, has suffered a loss in both psychic and material income. As the House Report on the 1946 Act put it, "Compensation should be sufficient to attract able men [and women] regardless of the possession of private means". In sum, the task force believes that the Service is not wholly opposed to the idea of performance pay ; but it believes that Management owes the Service a frank discussion of the problems outlined above, before any further step is taken. It believes that the question of performance pay should not disguise the basic problem of overall compensation. And it notes, incidentally, that another rank-in-person service, the Air Force, has recently abandoned incentive or performance pay as unworkable. Aside from performance pay, the key element in the "SFS" proposal is that for three-year renewable contracts at the top SFS level, which would equate the Career Ministers who presently have no time-in-class maximum. It is not clear how many officers would be retired earlier under such a proposal; there are never more than a few dozen Career Ministers, and a number of them hold Presidential appointments at any given time (23 out of 38, at present) and would not be immediately affected by retirement from the career service. More- over, the option of involuntary retirement through Section 519 is available. The task force's basic criticism of this contract proposal is that the reason for putting it forward is quite unclear. Is it principally intended to deal with the "impacted situation"? It will, as noted, affect relatively few senior officers; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 at the same time Management has until now made no report to the Service on how it views the possibility of early action on the factors listed in Section A.2 above which are the real cause of the "impacted situation". True, Management also proposes to reduce time-in-class maximums for other "SFS" officers ; but one does not need to create an "SFS" to reduce maximums which Management itself lengthened only three years ago. All in all, the task force is led to the conclusion that the main reason for the contract proposal, as for the "SFS" proposal as a whole, is simply to emulate a Civil Service innovation yet to ? prove itself. D. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES There is no denying the fact that the Service needs improvement at senior levels. One basic need is to improve the performance evaluation system in such a way as to make possible the "senior threshold" process mentioned but not laid out in Management's proposals. Since our promotion process in effect substitutes a Selection Board for the judgment of one or two supervisors, it is vitally important that a board have at its disposal the most accurate information possible on the performance of the individual being reviewed. The improvements made in the efficiency report system over the past decade have introduced more equity, and at the same time have increased the difficulty of writing frank reports. This difficulty is further increased when promotion rates go down ; in such a situation, the supervisor tends to think that his or her subordinate will suffer in competition if not described in superlatives. This is another example of the fact that the personnel system must be managed as a coordinated whole, since problems in.one part of the system inevitably affect other parts. The best way to improve the evaluation system so as to make possible a real senior threshold would seem to be to introduce some additional. means of objec- tive assessment. The Board of Examiners has recently begun using, with candi- dates for entry into the FSO corps, individual and group assessment techniques of the sort used successfully by many private firms and pioneered in the Federal service over a decade ago by the IRS. The task force suggests that a possible solution to the evaluation problem, which is most critical for officers at senior ranks whose files tend to become increasingly laudatory, would be to institute an assessment process for all officers after their promotion to Class 3. Officers in the field would presumably be assessed on their next return to Washington on transfer or consultation. This would not be a substitute for efficiency reports, but rather an additional exami- nation of an officer's abilities and potential to serve at senior levels, obtained in a one- to two-day assessment carried out in Washington. Such assessment would be required for eligibility for promotion to Class 2. The task force under- stands that assessment techniques are available which evaluate not only skills developed in past service but the potential to assume the management responsi- bilities which are required for most senior positions. This, coupled with the higher senior attrition rates which Management can bring about without re- course to legislation, could do much to ensure that officers who reach and remain in the senior ranks are of a very high standard. Needless to say, the modalities for such a threshold assessment-and the precepts instructing Selection Boards what weight to give to assessment records-would need to be worked out care- fully between AFSA and Management. None of this, it may be noted, would reouire new legislation. The task force also noted that Management's decision several years ago to cease requiring Foreign Service Inspectors to do reports on each officer in a post or bureau, has reduced the amount of objective information available to Selection Boards. While we appreciate the amount of effort required to pro- duce inspection reports on each officer, we believe that the need for better performance evaluation argues for reconsideration of Management's decision. As to the "impacted situation", the task force is firmly of the opinion that Management possesses sufficient authority to resolve the problems, in the first instance by reducing senior time-in-class maximums. The task force believes that Management should take such action without further delay. The vast ma- jority of officers unquestionably agree that promotion rates and attrition rates are too low for a Service designed, according to the House Report of 1946, to "* * * insure the rapid advancement of men of ability to positions of responsi- bility and the elimination of men who have reached their ceilings of perform- ance." Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 It should be clear that the task force believes the proposal for a "Senior Foreign Service" unjustified. Aside from the reasons cited above, we see no reason to create a separate structure marking a division between our senior officers and the rest of the Service-although we do agree on the need for better evaluation of candidates for senior ranks and have suggested above how this might be done. The fact is that we already possess an excellent "senior service", a sizeable number of whose members have been called on to fill Presidential appointments by each Administration since the creation of the Foreign Service. As to the question of short-term contracts for one or more of the senior grades, the task force believes that it would be useful for Management and AFSA to begin discussions, to see whether agreement could be reached on a proposed partial amendment of the Act of 1946 which might enjoy broad Service sup- port. A number of preliminary observations may be useful in this regard : (1) It would seem preferable to use the term "commission" rather than "contract". (2) A three-year term for a renewable senior commission seems too short, in the opinion of a number of officers who have expressed their views. To lessen suspicion that political pressure might somehow be exerted by a particular Administration, to reduce senior officers' desire to seek assignment in Wash- ington rather than abroad in order to be more "visible", and to permit a more objective basis for a renewal/termination decision than evaluation of an officer in a single job, a five-year commission might be preferable. (3) A group of senior FSOs in the Department has suggested that a system of renewable commissions might be introduced not only at the Career Minister level but for FSO-1s and FSO-2s. The task force has serious reservations regard- ing the possible effects of this proposal on the Service, but believes that the underlying idea deserves further study. (4) Consideration should be given to substituting some sort of limited-com- mission proposal for the present Section 519 of the Act, so seldom used. (5) Some consideration should be given to names. The rank of Career Am- bassador is meaningful for the general public, but there are no Career Ambas- sadors on active service and the task force is unaware of any plans to pro- mote any officers to that class. The rank of Career Minister is not meaningful for the general public, given the demise of legations. Perhaps the present class of Career Ministers should be re-named Career Ambassadors, but with a provision for future promotion to that class only of officers who had already served as Ambassadors abroad. (6) In considering the problem of retaining only high-quality senior officers, Management and AFSA might examine proposed legislation 'submitted by the Defense Department for the armed services, which inter alma provides that a brigadier general may serve a total of 30 years or spend 5 years in grade, which- ever is longer ; corresponding figures for major general are 35 and 5. (7) Regardless of what changes may be agreed for the Foreign Service, a number of domestic-service positions will be reserved for the Senior Executive Service in the State Department. The task force understands that these posi- tions number about 100, and assumes that none of these are FSO positions or positions traditionally filled by FSOs. The task force believes that while it is important to set the Civil Service in the Department on a new and better basis, it is equally important to protect the "home base" for FSOs in the Department provided by the Wriston reforms two decades ago. In conclusion, the task force emphasizes that it has found in its investigation strong support among Foreign Service officers of all ranks for restoring condi- tions, in an already competitive Service, which while fully maintaining the principles of merit and equity, would reward outstanding officers with more rapid promotion through renewed, more effective implementation of the "up or out" principle. The officers of the Service will also strongly support measures to provide more responsible jobs, in the context of increased responsibilities for the Service as a whole. The Foreign Service has been much studied and criti- cized ; but as the President has made clear in Why Not the Best?, it is an unparal- leled reservoir of talent which deserves the fullest use. The officers of the Service will fully support measures to improve the Serv- ice further. They will however insist-and principles of good management would dictate-that they be consulted closely in the elaboration of such measures. Ambassador VANCE. I will now talk about the repugnance with which I read the language quoted by Ambassador Herz in section Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 612 (a) which authorizes management for, the first time in the history of the Foreign Service to introduce into the evaluation records that go before selection boards some uncontrolled and uncontrollable state- ments of management's views about the future assignability of officers to be evaluated. I would like to close this statement at this position of my remarks by urging the elimination of all reference to performance pay and of this objectional language from section 612. My second and last point is the need, as I see it and as Ambassador Herz sees it, to protect, to assure that the tenure of the Senior Foreign Service shall not be diluted dangerously. However, I think it equally imperative to the well-being of the Foreign Service and the national interest in a sound Foreign Service that promotion up and selection out, and particularly selection out, be maintained, that upward move- ment be assured. There must,. therefore, be a reasonable balance between these two objectives, which are mutually inconsistent to some extent. The Foreign Service has basically four methods of thinning out the Foreign Service. The first is obligatory retirement at age 60, which I fervently hope continues to be applicable notwithstanding Congress- man Pepper's, in my view, misguided efforts to apply to the Foreign Service his proposed legislation removing this age cap. Second, voluntary early retirement. As the chairman knows, after 20 years of service and after age 50, Foreign Service officers may voluntarily retire. The administration has spoken in its testimony of the surplus on glut of Senior Foreign Service Officers that has devel- oped in the last couple of years. I would like to go very briefly into why this glut has developed. Our retirement pensions are determined by a formula which looks to the average salary of the highest paid 3 years. I would point out that, at the end of February 1977, there was a very large pay increase for the Foreign' Service as well as for all Government employees. Therefore, there is a very large number of Senior Foreign Service officers who have been awaiting the attainment of 3 years at this new salary level before retiring. There will be very little financial reason for many of them to remain in service after that period. And, we are already beginning to see, I understand, a large number of voluntary retirements of this age group as we approach February of 1980. The third method of thinning out is selection out. In our selection boards each year we look not only for the officers who are recommended for promotion, but also identify the lowest percentile of officers who, even though they are still performing satisfactorily, are recommended for selection out because of relatively less productive performance. Now, I think this is an excellent principle and it is one that was borrowed, again, from the military by the 1946 Foreign Service Act. Management has pointed out that thinning out from this procedure has dropped in numbers very appreciably in the last few years. I agree with management that this is regrettable. I would point out, however, that increased openness, the creation of grievance pro- cedures and the like, which I think are quite appropriate in a de- mocracy, have resulted in cumbersomeness being increased not only in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 the Foreign Service, but in other quasi-judicial and judicial pro- cedures throughout our Government. How this can be corrected is a very difficult problem, but it should be corrected only with the greatest of care. The fourth and last method of thinning out of the Service is time in class, which means very simply that if an officer is not promoted to the next higher class after an administratively fixed number of years in class, he is automatically retired. The CHAIRMAN. We are very fortunate that does not happen in the Senate. Ambassador VANCE. The administration, in connection with this new legislation, has stated that it proposes administratively to reduce time in class. One wonders why it awaits the new legislation in order to reduce time in class, because it can be done administratively. It also, by legislation, introduces a new tool of personnel manage- ment called the renewable commission. This means that, after ad- ministratively reduced time in class, the selection board can have an option additional to the options that existed before. The options that existed before are : promotion up, selection out, or leave the officer there and, if time in class tolls, he is out. The proposal would permit the board to recommend that he be given a renewable commission, even though the officer had reached the end of time in class. The length of a renewable commission would be administratively determined. The administration has indicated that in order to eliminate this glut of senior officers, it will greatly reduce time in class for the senior ranks and establish, perhaps, a 3-year renewable commission. The administration points out, quite accurately, that a glut in the numbers of senior officers limits the openings for promotion and blocks the upward flow from the bottom to the top, which is essential to the health of the Foreign Service. Such a blockage results under- standably in low morale and the departure from the Foreign Service of some younger good officers we should not be losing. However, I would like to point out low morale and departure of good officers are caused by more than periods of slow promotion or a percep- tion that pay is inadequate. I would like to emphasize the psychic pay which used to exist when Foreign Service officers believed they were contributing participants in. a venture in American world leadership designed to make this planet a better and safer place on which to live. The Vietnam syndrome has largely destroyed this psychic pay, al- though Khomeini and his ilk may be correcting this sickness. Another contribution to low morale arises from the following. Experienced Foreign Service officers know from hard-won experience that effective foreign policy implementation requires coordination. Yet, these same officers have seen AID and what is now called ICA moved very recently by statute even further away from effective State Department coordination. The same Foreign Service officers have also very recently seen com- mercial positions taken away from the Department of State and given to another department, copying the earlier ill-advised experiment which saw our agricultural officers taken away from State and given to another department. I saw, personally, the harm done by this latter move. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 The last contribution to low morale I want to mention is noncareer appointments to Foreign Service positions, a problem with which this committee has had more than ample experience. We have today perhaps as many chiefs of mission who are career as in other recent administrations. However, my count in the most recent Department of State telephone book as to the number of career and noncareer officers now filling the positions of Assistant Secretary or the equivalent and above, counting ambassadors at large (but not the Secretary of State), totals 24 noncareer and 11 career officers. In the last administration there was only one noncareer Assistant Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Along that line, as you may know, I have long fought for the idea there should be a higher percentage of career chiefs of mission. But, it is interesting in the last 30 or 40 years, the percent- ages remain somewhat the same, hovering around 70 percent or 65 percent of career and the balance noncareer for chiefs of mission. And, it seems to be staying there now. When you get to the Assistant Secretaries of State, I am wondering if those should probably not be, and this is a. question of concept, political, because those are really political positions. And in that situation the deputies should be career. It is a matter of where the political line is drawn. You could say that a Foreign Service officer would make a much better Secretary of State because he would be more familiar with the world, but still, I think, we all agree that that level should be political. Where do you then stop this process? I agree with you, I think, that most ambassa- dors should be career because the ambassadors, particularly in this age of instant. communications, are merely, soldiers carrying out the po- litical orders given from Washington. But at what level do you think it should stop? Do you think it should stop at the Under Secretary level? Or, do you think it should include the Assistant Secretary level ? In other Government agencies, as you know, as a general rule, the new administration brings its own people down to the Assistant Sec- retary level. In Great Britain, however, they stop at the cabinet or immediate subcabinet level. Ambassador VANcn. I certainly believe that the Secretary and his immediate deputy, the Under Secretary, should be political. Tradi- tionally, the third position in the Department of State has been career, as it is today. I agree that the President and the Secretary of State have got to have freedom to appoint Assistant Secretaries from among persons of their political persuasion. However, I think a better balance could be achieved by the present administration. Recent administrations of both parties did better. I think the present administration has leaned somewhat out of balance in the direction of political appointments. I would add that one level to which political appointments should not reach and which, for the first time in the history of the Foreign Service the present administration has reached, is the level of office director. The CHAIRMAN. I would completely agree with you. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Ambassador VANCE. You spoke of other departments. Other de- partments other than the military do not have a career service that is available for them to draw upon. I do not think that any administration has had any reasonable basis to complain about the lack of loyalty of the Foreign Service in the implementation of foreign policy once that policy is decided upon. So, the fear of a new administration, coming in following one of another political persuasion is, I think, ill-founded. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. In connection with your statement, which will appear in full in the record, I am very, very appreciative. Your view, as I understand, your thought is that the pay should be increased because of the responsibility of the work. And, I would agree there with you. But, do you think the Foreign Service would welcome equally the idea of an increase in pay being divided up amongst the whole group as having the individual bonuses to be decided by the selection board? Ambassador VANCE. I would think that they would prefer the avail- able moneys to be divided equitably between all members. And, to that end may I add a remark or two about pay comparability, which I think is directly pertinent to the Chairman's question? I am told that OMB [Office of Management and Budget], has very recently decided to refuse in the Department of State's upcoming budget some $24 million which the Department of State requested in order to bring about pay comparability at the middle and lower ranks of the Foreign Service with the civil service. The Chairman will recall that in last year's appropriation bill, the Department of State was directed to conduct a study of pay com- parability between the Foreign Service and the civil service. The State Department engaged Hay Associates, which is a very well- known firm used by many major corporations, for this type of study. And, Hay Associates determined The CHAIRMAN. That was my amendment. My memory is jogged that that was my amendment that provided the means to do that. Ambassador VANCE. Yes. Hay Associates found that Foreign Serv- ice officers in the middle and lower ranks are being paid less for com- parable work than the civil service. There was, therefore, a decision by the Department of State to seek approximately $24 million in this year's budget in order to correct this to the extent recommended by Hay Associates. OMB, I am told, has decided to give $4 million spread over 4 years to make some slight, but totally inadequate corrections. I think this is very regrettable. And, I think this is another argument why per- formance pay should be eliminated. I suggest it is totally inappropriate to make performance pay avail- able to the Senior Foreign Service, cash in addition to base salary, when at the same time we are not paying our middle and lower ranks at the same level as the civil service. While on the subject of the budget, I also have been informed that very serious cuts are being made by OMB in moneys the Department Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 of State is requesting this year for language and area training. I would suggest to the chairman this is not the time to reduce language and area training, with the crises we are facing around the world. And, if it is going to be cut for officers, I fear such training will be eliminated totally for our spouses. And, the Department of State just recently won authorization to give them this kind of training. Our spouses have always been anxious to further their country's foreign policy goals and should certainly be given all the training possible to put them in a position to do so more effectively. The CHAIRMAN. I would agree on that. The Hay study did not just compare the Foreign Service salaries with the Civil Service, but also with the military and industry. And, as I understand, in every case, the Foreign Service came out at the low end of the totem pole, includ- ing the military. You have another factor emphasized and that is, in a world at peace, the danger, the possibility. of death, illness, maiming is far greater in the Foreign Service than it is in the military service. And, the fact that we have had five chiefs of mission killed or assassinated in the last 10 years is a fact of life that I don't think is.thought enough about and is another reason why a comparison with the military is more relevant than with the civil service is warranted because not too many civil servants are assassinated or maimed or held Ambassador VANCE. As hostages. The CHAIRMAN. Or held as hostages at this time. And, it is a factor that I think should be kept in mind. Thank you very much, indeed. Ambassador VANCE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief comment in response to what you just said? There are two ways that are readily available by administrative action for the Department of State now, without further legislation, to give more remuneration to Foreign Service officers. One relates to differential pay. As the chairman knows, our hard- ship posts around the world, usually in the developing countries, are rated as 10, 15 or 25 percent differential and all persons assigned to those posts, except chiefs of mission, receive this percent of base pay as "differential" pay. This decision to deprive chiefs of mission is an administrative decision which can be reversed administratively. This would not only be an immediate benefit to chiefs of mission, to career officers assigned to hardship posts but it would encourage offi- cers to seek these assignments, which are not always the most desir- able in that they include such places as Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and so forth. Moreover, the present rule that prohibits any officer at post receiving more pay than his chief of mission results in a number of officers at these posts not receiving as much money as they would otherwise get. When I was Ambassador in Kinshasa, Zaire, which was a 25 percent post, I did not receive this differential and that meant that some five or six of my senior associates were receiving less than they would have if chiefs of mission were given differential pay. Another suggestion relates to the charge d'affaires pay. As the chair- man knows, if a chief of mission is absent temporarily, his No. 2 be- comes charge d'affaires. What made me think of this suggestion was the chairman's reference to the dangers our officers are experiencing. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 I was thinking of my friend and fellow Minnesotan, Bruce Laingen, who is charge d'affaires in Iran. A charge d'affaires has to wait 28 days, before he gets any difference in pay and then he gets only 50 percent of the difference between his pay and that of his absent chief. And, he has to wait considerably longer (90 days) to get 75 percent. These are all administrative deci- sions and I see no reason why a charge d'affaires should not get the full difference if he is performing that difficult a position for any appreciable period of time. The CHAIRMTAN. I think you are correct. As you know, the charge pay also applies to consulates as well. I think that is a very good suggestion. I thank you very much, indeed, Ambassador Vance, for being with us. I look forward to reading your testimony in detail myself, too. Ambassador VANCE. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce also in the record a two-page document which indicates that, perhaps, the glut in the Senior Foreign Service is virtually ended now and we may even be facing a shortage next year. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be inserted in the rec- ord following your prepared statement. [Ambassador Vance's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON B. VANCE I greatly appreciate the privilege of testifying before this Committee on the proposed bill to restructure the Foreign Service, replacing the Foreign Service Act of 1946. The Foreign Service constitutes an unequaled national resource of experts for advising our Government on foreign policy and for implementing that policy once it is adopted. We should all be concerned at assuring that : (1) The Foreign Service performs its advisory functions with maximum can- dor ; and -(2) Its accumulated experience and wisdom is protected in reasonable balance with the opportunity for younger officers to be promoted to the top. These are the two issues I will discuss, in that order. I fear that some of the proposals in this bill which relate to the Senior Foreign Service will seriously dilute the candor with which the Foreign Service advises the President and the Secretary of State. I refer to the proposal of performance pay for the Senior Foreign Service, itself to be created under this bill. I am distressed by the context in which these proposals were put forward, as well as by their substance. As to context, the creation of a "Senior Foreign Serv- ice" copies last year's Civil Service Reform Act and its creation of the Senior Executive Service. We all recall that the Civil Service Reform Act was pressed by the Administration because it wanted to strengthen management's control of the Civil Service work force. If the same motivation led to the legislation pro- posed for the Foreign Service, we should be concerned about its impact on candor. We have been assured by the honorable men who currently head the State De- partment that they value candor and favor "risk takers", or officers willing to advance presently unpopular positions. However, this may not always be the at- titude of Departmental leadership. Therefore, let us be sure that the legislation protects appropriate candor. "Performance pay" proposes that members of the new Senior Foreign Service may compete for annual cash performance bonuses. Even career chiefs of mis- sion and assistant secretaries may join in this competition ! Awards are to be based upon recommendations from the annual selection boards. However, even though the selection board system of the Foreign- Service is the most equitable evaluation system yet devised by our Government, my considerable experience with it persuades me that it cannot be finely enough tuned to make annual per- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 formance pay awards equitable. Temptation will be great on the part of the com- petitors to assure a highly favorable recommendation from supervisors, to the serious dilution of candor. Even in the Civil Service, it has yet to be proven that performance pay is de- sirable. Press reports speak of the dismay of Office of Personnel Management experts at the difficulties they anticipate in administering performance pay in the Civil Service. Anyhow, the Civil Service is a "rank in job" service and the only way one can be promoted is to be assigned to another, higher ranking position. The Foreign Service is a "rank in person" system and there is annual competition for promo- tion. Incidentally, management can exert influence by the assignment process, assigning a favored officer to a position where he may more easily show his quali- fications (or the reverse). Finally, many, including myself, oppose performance pay because it is simply inappropriate to reward someone for doing his job, especially when he can earn promotion by following such a course. If performance pay is appropriate for the Foreign Service, why not for the military services with which our Foreign Service has so much in common? Moreover, the military services are also "rank in person" and do not seek cash bonuses for doing their duty. Our Air Force ex- perimented with performance pay and gave it up. The American Foreign Service Association's Board is uncomfortable with per- formance pay, but does not believe it would be proper for the Board as the trade, union organization of the Foreign Service to block the opportunity for any mem- ber to earn substantially more money. I share the belief of the Association that the Foreign Service, as a whole, and not just its senior officers, is underpaid. But the possibility of an annual grant of performance pay would not be a reliable factor upon which family budget planning could be based. In sum, performance pay would detract from meaningful compensation, would be impossible of equit- able implementation and hence lead to toadyism, and it would be, quite simply, inappropriate. Under last year's American Foreign Service Association's Board, I had the honor to lead one of its task forces to consider the earlier drafts of this legisla- tion. This was the task force on the legislation's impact on senior officers. We consulted with several hundred Foreign Service Officers of all ranks and read the reports of reactions from most of our officers in the field. We found that very few favored performance pay. More, but still a minority, would swallow it only .because of the feeling that the Foreign Service should be better remunerated. Virtually all were uncomfortable with the method proposed. You could ask what appropriate suggestions could be advanced to provide more remuneration for the Senior Foreign Service other than performance pay. Al- though I am sure other means might be found, the following two come to mind : (1) Personnel assigned to hardship posts in the Foreign Service are given differential allowances ranging from 10 to 15 to 25% of base pay. However, by administrative, not legislative, action chiefs of mission are not given any dif- ferential pay. This not only penalizes them but also the other senior officers at the post because of the quite appropriate rule that no one should be paid more than the chief of mission (please note that performance pay ignores this rule). (2) If the second officer at a post becomes in charge because of the absence of the chief of mission, his charge pay is, by administrative decision, not payable until he has been in charge 28 days and, even then, he receives only half the difference between his pay and that of his absent chief. (After 90 days of chargd ship the percentage goes to 75.) It should be made immediately effective, and for the full difference. I have just learned that OMB is denying the budget request of the Department of State for $24 million which State believes would be required to bring about pay comparability between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service in the lower and middle grades. You will recall that the Congress directed that a study of pay comparability be made in the Department of State. The Department engaged Hay Associates to prepare such a study. This firm is probably the best known in its field and is widely used by major corporations. After careful study, Hay Asso- ciates concluded that the Foreign Service is being paid less for the same work than the Civil Service in the middle and lower grades. To correct this state of affairs, they proposed to change certain linkage points between Foreign and Civil Service ranks and pay scales. OMB is recommending much less than needed to correct the incompatibilities found by Hay Associates, apparently for budgetary reasons. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 If monies are not available to assure equal pay for equal work, a principle mandated by law, one can reasonably wonder whether the new funds which would be required to implement performance pay over and above those required for the continuation of regular salaries would be made available, especially in this day of budget stringencies. Moreover, it would not be appropriate to give the Senior Foreign Service money above salary, in order to give these officers treatment equal to that given the Senior Executive Service, while at the same time depriving the middle and lower grades equality with Civil Service base pay. (Incidental to this point, but important : I have learned that OMB is seriously cutting the Department of State budget requests in the area of language and area training. It would appear that this is a classic case of penny wisdom and ,dollar foolishness. Today's foreign policy crises surely call for increased, not decreased, training for our Foreign Service. Also, if language and area training for officers is to be decreased, the newly won programs for such training for Foreign Service spouses risks cancellation. Our spouses want to further our foreign policy goals, and it would be shortsighted to deprive them of the train- ing which would render their efforts more effective.) II My second major concern with this proposed legislation is that tenure in the senior ranks of the Foreign Service will be diluted dangerously. I believe that a number of factors have resulted, in recent years, in too much protection of tenure, an imbalance damaging to the "promotion up or selection out" principle which must continue to be the basic personnel policy for our Foreign Service. But, let us not over-correct. Management complains that there has been a serious falling-off in the number of senior officers "selected out" in the "promotion-up or selection-out" system, which was borrowed by the 1946 Foreign Service Act from our military services. This is regrettable because, in order to maintain the high quality of the Foreign Service, its less productive officers must be sternly culled out, even if they are performing satisfactorily, in order to keep upward movement functioning. How- ever, this problem is not restricted in today's America to its Foreign Service. Openness, grievance procedures, and the like, which a democracy must favor, have led to increased cumbersomeness across the who'e range of our govern- mental, and especially quasi-judicial and judicial procedures. Solutions are not easy to find which will not so dilute senior officer tenure as to approach Russian roulette or pressure, at the expense of candor, to cater to the boss. The Administration proposes in this legislation to attempt to make "selection out" easier for selection boards and management by the creation of a new tool called the "renewable commission" for the three senior classes. As we shall see, this and other actions proposed would importantly erode tenure. The Foreign Service system presently provides for thinning the ranks by four procedures: (1) Selection-out for relatively less productive performance (to which we have just alluded) ; (2) "Time in class" ("Time in class" provides that officers not promoted before the expiration of an administratively fixed time in a given class or rank are automatically retired) ; (3) Obligatory retirement at age 60 (which may not be retained, if Congress- man Pepper's singularly misguided efforts to extend his proposal to the Foreign Service succeed) ; and (4) Voluntary early, retirement. The Administration argues that not only are far fewer of the less productive officers now being dropped but that a surplus of senior officers has developed, relative to the number of positions available. This glut restrict' promotions which contributes to low morale among middle and junior officers. It is proposed (administratively) to reduce "time in class" sharply and pro- vide (legislatively) for the "renewable commission." In other words, this would provide that an officer not promoted after a much reduced "time in class" may be given a "renewable commission" which would extend him at his present rank for an administratively determined, but short number of years. A later (or an initial) denial of this renewable commission is expected by management to be less difficult for selection boards than recommending selection out for the less productive officers. If that proves to be the case, "selection out" may resume retiring a larger number of less effective officers. Management has said that it has in mind reducing "time in class" for classes 1 and 2, now an excessive total Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 of 22 years, to perhaps 5 years for each class, with the possibility of a "renew- able commission" of perhaps an additional 3 years, per renewal. I would favor this experiment, but would want to see safeguards that some future managers do not reduce "time in class" and the length of the "renewable commission" to derisory totals of years, thus instituting virtually no tenure or Russian roulette. I hope the Congress will make the legislative history clear that it will closely monitor the Department's implementation in order to be sure that tenure in the senior ranks is reasonably protected and that decimation of this valuable resource does not occur. Additionally, the legislation itself should provide that the Board of the Foreign Service should certify that the annual selection board precepts are in accordance with this intent. It is con- ceivable that we could see a serious shortage of senior officers develop as early as next year. It should be noted that the surplus of senior officers has been created to a very considerable extent by the extension of "time in class" for classes FSO 1 and 2, just mentioned, which was administratively decided in 1976. It was also brought by the court decision which set aside compulsory retirement at age 60 for a number of months until that decision was only recently overturned by the Supreme Court. And, finally, a large number of senior officers who would otherwise have opted for voluntary early retirement for one reason or another have. been waiting to retire until now because of the impact of the large pay in- crease of February 1977 on the rule that retirement pensions are based upon the average salary of the highest three years. Finally, it should be noted that something like 35 percent of total senior positions are filled by non-senior officers, in so-called "stretch assignments." Some more reasonable balance could be attained if more promotions were assured by a return to serious, strict "up or out" attrition. As for the admittedly low morale in the Foreign Service, reasons other than slow promotions and base pay can be identified. These include the serious erosion in "psychic pay" which used to exist when Foreign Service officers believed they were contributing participants in a venture in American world leadership de- signed to make this planet a better and safer place on which to live. The Viet- Nam syndrome destroyed most of this feeling. However. Khomeini and his ilk have done much to restore recognition that the United States must lead if it is to survive. The Foreign Service, which has been convinced by experience that a country's foreign policy, to be effective, must be coordinated, has seen recent laws remov- ing still further from State Department coordinating influence two of the key arms of foreign policy implementation, AID and USIA (to use the former titles). Most recently, our country's efforts to help our foreign commerce have been taken from State and lodged in another Department. This was done notwithstanding the conviction of the Foreign Service that it had earlier been a mistake to take away from State and lodge elsewhere our efforts abroad in the agricultural field. Then, there is the problem of non-career appointments to Foreign Service po- sitions. While it is true that about three-quarters of American ambassadors are now drawn from the career service, a slightly higher percentage than in pre- vious administrations, no other major country makes more than a tiny handful of ambassadorial appointments from non-career ranks. Most major countries make none. Furthermore, about 55% of ranking positions in the State Depart- ment (deputy assistant secretary and above) are now filled by political ap- pointees. And political appointees have been named even to office-director positions which had all been filled by career officers in previous administrations. In the last administration there was only one political appointee and 13 career officers among assistant secretaries of State (including the heads of Consular Affairs, Intelligence Research and Politico-Military Affairs). Now there are 8 political appointees in these jobs ! Added to this, is the increasing resort to special missions sent abroad, staffed from the NSC and other sources. A certain amount of this is perhaps unavoidable in our political system, but it should not be exaggerated. * s * * * * * I have just been informed that Section 612A of the proposed bill contains another provision which is dangerous to candor. The early Association task forces had objected strongly to it and I had supposed it had been dropped. This section describes the material which may be given to selection boards. After listing documents appropriate for this purpose, such as efficiency or evalua- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 tion reports by supervisors, reports by inspectors, official commendations or charges of misconduct, this section adds for officers in the Senior Foreign Serv- ice, "and records of current and prospective assignments". This last phrase could mean either that Mr. Smith may look forward to assignment as chief of mission, or it can state that management envisages extreme difficulty in placing Mr. Smith anywhere. How could the victim protect himself? Projecting the future is the classic "iffy" question. Disproving a prQjection of the future would not be possible for the individual. I urge elimination of this language. A GRIM FAIRY TALE: Do WE NEED A NEW FOREIGN SERVICE ACT TO CLEAR THE PATH TO THE Top? (James R. Ruchti 1) Only occasionally do ugly ducklings turn out to be swans. But one of those occasions may come as early as March 1, 1980. The ugly ducklings are the surplus senior officers whose failure to retire voluntarily in previous reliable numbers (about 90-100 a year) has clogged the personnel system. This has prevented flow-through so that middle-grade officers are not being promoted in the numbers of a few years ago. This situation, it is alleged, has swept the Department's management toward a complete restructuring of the Foreign Service, although the Congress may not share M's sense of urgency. Let's look at senior officers in the Department over the 10-year period, 1968- 1978. There are fewer senior officers (CM, FSO-1 and 2, FSR-1 and 2, and FSRU-1 and 2) today than ten years ago, both absolutely and relatively (1968: 1131 senior officers, or 5 percent of the total work force. 1979: 939 senior officers, or 3.8 percent of the work force). The old birds have been staying close to the Department feed trough, however, waiting for clearer readings on retirement at age 60 (which is once again manda- tory) and for three high years at the current salary maximum of $47,500 to feather their retirement nests. The first high-3 nest egg at $47,500 will hatch by March 1, 1980. At that time, there will be at least 400 seniors, of which 320 are FSOs, with all the technical qualifications to fly the coop voluntarily : they will have high-3 at $47,500, 20 years of service, and will be over 50. When the results of all the other methods of separation are added (time-in- class for Class 2, disability, age 60, selection-out for substandard performance, etc.), something like another 50-75 seniors will retire. Thus the maximum total potential departures would be just under 500. A very high range of separation would be about 50 percent or 200-250. A low range would be about 10 percent or 50-60. A medium range would be 100-125. These estimates are probably conservative. By March 1, 1980, 258 senior officers will have 30 years of service and 111 will have 35 years. Given the tax picture and the absence of cost-of-living adjustments for seniors at $47,500, there is almost no net financial gain to be had by remaining on the job, because retirement pay is close to net active duty pay. To understand the significance of these facts, we need one more set of figures. Promotion rates over the last 15 years for FSO-2 to 1 and FSO-3 to 2 have averaged 9 percent of the class in each case. There were 647 FSO-3 and 293 FSO-2 officers on June 30, 1979. Thus, the, expected promotion rate for both FSO classes is 60 for 3's and 30 for 2's, for a combined total of about 90 promo- tions in 1980. To these should be added the FSR and FSRU promotions for Classes 3 and 2, or a combined total of 15-20 annually. The grand total for all 3's and 2's is in the range 105-110. The conclusions are obvious. Under almost any predictable scenario, there will be a strong swing back to normal senior separations in 1980 which will match or, probably, exceed the expected promotion rate of Class 3 and even the com- bined expectations for Classes 2 and 3. There may even be a shortage of senior officers by the summer of 1980, and it could be a severe one, lowering the proportion of seniors in the total work force substantially below the 4 percent figure for the first time. 1 James Ruchti is presently with the President's Commission on Foreign Language.and International Studies. Formerly he was reports coordinator in M/MO and Consul General in Stuttgart. He is a member of the Open Forum Working Group on Professional Concerns. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 To carry the metaphor one step further, it looks like management may be in the process of really laying a restructure egg. If its real concern is the bulge at the top, management should let nature take its own self-correcting course. Middle-grade officers, who are concerned about prospects for promotion to senior ranks, should note that the historical promotion rate of 9 percent for Classes 3 and 2 is nevertheless below that of recent years. The figure, though disappointing, is instructive. It indicates the limitations on promotions. Only a draconion revision of personnel rules, policies, and procedures, which raises questions of safeguarding professionalism from political manipulation, would have much long-term effect on average rates of advancement. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is.Mr. Robert Stern, American Foreign Service Association. Thank you for being with us. STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. STERN, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Stern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, sir, before we get. to our basic remarks, I would like to comment that the Association could not agree more with your opening statement that there are fun- damental differences between the Civil Service and the Foreign Service_ And, we should not be slavishly looking for ways to get closer to it, but should be looking at other models, particularly the miJiitary. We could not agree with that more, sir. I also think I should make a comment or two regarding the state- ments of the previous witnesses, with whom for the most part, the Association is quite in agreement. There is, however, I think in Am- bassador IIerz's testimony the inference that the middle- or junior level officers of the Department and of the Association are making policy without regard to the interests and to the experience of our senior colleagues. And, I would like to note, as Ambassador Vance has himself stated, lie was the chairman of our task force. We have actively gone out to seek all of the people we could find who could provide us with his kind of personal knowledge and experience. And, he was a vast help to us. We also have two retired ambassadors who are members of the Board of Directors of the Foreign Service. They are the retired con- stituency. They are regular and very active participants. We are, by executive order, barred from seeking the participation of many senior officers as they are deemed confidential employees. And, therefore, we may not ask them to participate in day-to-day activities. Nevertheless, we do canvass them. When the administration first put forward a draft proposal of the bill you have before you, sir, we circulated it to our membership worldwide. We received back almost 300 messages. We held several major meetings in Washington. We did our best to canvass everybody. And, I think that the statement that I will offer to you today on behalf of the Association is very reflective of that broad consensus throughout the ranks. We do represent and we are the exclusive representatives of the 11,000 AID and State Foreign Service employees. We believe that we can offer proposals which will better serve the national interest than some of the elements of the current act. We have testified, of course, before the joint subcommittee of the House on two occasions. We explained to them then why we could Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 251 not endorse the proposal as it was presently written, and presented a detailed analysis of the changes needed to win our endorsement. We will, sir, submit a line-by-line analysis of the bill, but will not take your time with that at the moment. [The information referred to appears on p. 265.] In our consultation with the leadership of State and AID, we are now convinced there is a greater commonality of objectives than in the beginning. In part, this is due to the fact we have been consulting for a period now approaching 1 year. The bill before you is a substantially different document than the original draft. We are pleased we had a hand in that making. It still does not meet all of our concerns. Essentially, there are three elements we would like to bring to mind. The first is the role and integrity of the Foreign Service, which we believe must be preserved and enhanced. Second, we believe that career employees must be assured a strong voice in the evolution of the Foreign Service. This touches on pre- vious testimony from previous witnesses. And, lastly, we would like to reemphasize the comments of Ambassador Vance and your inter- vention, sir, that the Foreign Service must be compensated on a par with other Government employees and must receive appropriate incen- tives for lifetime service abroad. On the first point on the role and integrity of the Service, the loss of the commercial function is the latest in a series of events which highlights the need to reaffirm the role of the career service as an institution for which there is no credible substitute within our Gov- ernment. And, we ask that both in the general provisions of the proposed act and in its legislative history that the Congress support a Foreign Service of the United States which advises and assists the President and Secretary of State in the formulation of foreign policy and con- ducts the full range of U.S. Government civilian affairs overseas on behalf of the principal foreign affairs agencies and those with major foreign affairs concerns. We believe this will require maximum uniformity of Foreign Serv- ice personnel management, particularly of the Senior Foreign Service among the varying agencies. We have modified our original proposal for Foreign Service develop- ment officers in AID to outright endorsement that they should be commissioned officers. There should be no artificial labels or distinc- tions among Foreign Service officers. On the other hand, we do recognize, given AID's recent history, that a rush to compatability would be a disservice. Too many officers who have been frozen in-grade for too long would be ill served. We will have recommendations on that as well. We believe the changing roles and aspirations of the families of our overseas em- ployees must be an integral part of the comprehensive improvement of the quality of Foreign Service life for all. The dangers and hard- ships endured by Foreign Service families must be acknowledged and addressed. We want more training. We would like chances for employment. And, we are looking at such benefits as vested retirement rights. However, we are very concerned and we totally reject the fratricidal implications of the Office of Management and Budget approach which Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 would require that the resources to support the families would have to be taken out of the hides of the career employees. This must not be a zero sum game. In our section-by-section analysis, we provide a number of changes which would mandate specific im- provements for families, but that would stipulate as a matter of law that resources and opportunities necessary may not be reprogramed to the detriment of the professional career employee, staff corps, officer, or whatever else. We are concerned that the intake into the Service, the career devel- opment, and the intake into the senior ranks as well as just, honorable, and secure retirement must be predictable and controlled. It is for this reason in a variety of places in our testimony and in the line by line, we seek to make some of the new concepts in the act subject to negotiations with the representative of the Foreign Service. We recognize these will. be evolving processes and we are concerned that if we put things too hard and too fast into the 1979 law, we may well find them unacceptable in 1983. We would prefer rather to have more permissive language which would allow us, as we do presently, to discuss these things on a regular basis and negotiate fully. Ultimately, however, the preservation and enhancement of the Serv- ice's ability to serve the national interest can only be accomplished if the administration and the Congress provide the financial and per- sonnel resources necessary for us to accomplish our mission. We can no longer survive shifting resources from one important activity to another, such as reducing political reporting to provide administrative services. The United States cannot continue to main- tain a strong international diplomatic position in the complex world of the 1980's by deploying fewer people than it did in the 1950's. Now, the association would not be so simplistic as to suggest that the reduction of 'a few reporting positions is solely responsible for our problems. It is, however, significant. And, in the face of the challenges ahead, we think it irresponsible that the fiscal year 1981 budget for State put forward by OMB proposes further cuts in reporting posi- tions, language, and other training. It is inconceivable to us that, at a time when the entire Nation is aware of the importance of our relations with foreign countries, our ability to deal with them will be further reduced. We know, sir, that you and the Congress have called attention to the fact that we have not had sufficient numbers of officers trained in hard languages. Yet, we now see the Office of Budget and Management pro- posing to reduce that number even further. We consider that grossly unacceptable. In the recent reorganization plan which was presented to the Con- gress to strengthen and improve U.S. commercial function overseas, we lost 600 positions, 162 of them officers. We now understand that a large number of those positions will not be passed on to the Depart- ment of. Commerce, but for .budget reasons will be retained within OMB. Thus, we find. that rather. than strengthening. our commercial func- tion abroad, we will dilute it. We don't even know how many years it will be before we come back to the current strength. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 We And that the concept of having these separate'services non-inte- ,grated, within an embassy is unacceptable. We believe they can only be mutually reinforced if they are integrated under the ambassadors and clearly backstopped by the department. We ask the Senate to specify that the balkanization of the Foreign Service end and that the integrity of the service be no further impaired. In terms of our need for a voice in the evolution of the service, we recognize that the proposed act will give management broad new au- thorities. We know where we stand under the existing executive order and under existing legislation. We have no idea how successive admin- istrations may choose to implement new authorities. We are concerned, as you heard from Ambassador Herz and Ambassador Vance, of pos- sible political abuses in the future. Therefore, we feel it is in everybody's interest that the employee representative be as broadly based as possible, that we have the largest possible bargaining unit. The executive order under which we pres- ently act is rather unique in that managers and supervisors are part of our bargaining unit. This is a recognition of our rank in person. It is a recognition . of our shared problems, hardships, and concerns worldwide. It differs, very significantly from. the Civil Service Reform Act legislation. The best thing we can say about the current act is that it works well. Neither management nor the employees have found any reason to challenge this aspect of it and we urge that Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 not be included in the Foreign Serv- ice legislation. It would disenfranchise half of the service. On this. particular point, title VII proposes the exclusion of a wide variety of people who, in the civil service, would be considered super- visors'by virtue of the rank-in-job. In our service, which is rank-in- person, an officer may well be a supervisor on a given tour and not be a supervisor in the next. I might state from personal experience in my last overseas assign- ment, I was a chief of section and supervised seven people. Since then, I have been promoted and supervise half a secretary. This is not at all uncommon because we move back and forth depending on our re- sponsibilities. It is important, sir, that subject to the necessary limitation of con- fidential employees, which we recognize should not be involved in the bargaining unit, we keep as broad a based unit as we can. And, in our line-by-line, we would make specific comments on it. We are also concerned that in the Foreign Service Act they would water down the disputes' panel decisions. In the Civil Service Act, disputes' panel decisions are final. We think they should be final for the Foreign Service as well. Lastly, sir, I would like to turn to the question of pay. If we are to attract, develop, retain the talented people we need we have to be able to make reasonable predictions about their futures and they must retain tangible benefits. For the staff corps this means compen- sation built into the salary structure for the overseas factor and a renewed assessment of the extra responsibilities they assume abroad. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 '254 1 should mention that few of our staff corps serve in: Washington. They,.serve;'the 'great majority of their careers overseas. .7o-try and look: at ;them on ? a 'one-for-one basis with a civil,, service which never goes overseas, begs the question. We 'find they do not .receive pay.an- th'orization 'for the extraordinary hours they spend on :standby duty. At 15 small. - osts, this often means communicators' never get a day -off. They live by the telephone 7 days a week. This -is the functional equivalent of house' arrest.. Something has to be done for them. For 'the service, we would like to see an end to the exclusion from -hardship pay for ambassadors. As has been brought out by Ambassador Vance,: by administrative fiat, ambassadors may not receive these allowances. All of their senior officers below them are, therefore, denied it as well. We'have'had five ambassadors assassinated in the past decade. That is more than-all of the U.S. generals killed by hostile fire in Vietnam. Ambassadors deserve the same rights and same allowances as anybody else. We are split on the question of performance pay. We have attempted to reach all of the senior officers who might be affected by it and those officers who could reasonably be expected to join the Senior Foreign-.Service over the next few years. And, we get a mixed reaction. We have chosen not to oppose it because at the moment it is the only tangible thing we have seen that would offer additional compensation for our senior people. On basic pay comparability, we note that almost 10 years ago the Congress enacted 5 U.S.C. 501 which explicitly called for equal pay for equal work. In 1978, the Congress directed and authorized funds to the Hay study that was mentioned earlier. I should add that when the Civil Service' Commission was being changed into the Office of Person- nel Management, they hired Hay Associates as their consultants. It was this which led us to make the same choice. The State Department, the Agency for International Development, and the International Communications Agencies have all accepted Hay's findings and have recommended to OMB adoption of proper linkages. OMB has chosen to ignore the intent of the Congress, the evidence of the, study, and the advice of the agencies and instead. seeks to substitute the findings of the study done more than 5 years a o by the Civil Service Commission. We ask the Senate to insist that the intent of the Congress to rectify this longstanding injustice be rectified im- mediately, setting into law the pay parity between the Civil Service and Foreign Service at the Hay recommended linkages. We could not support this act unless necessary provisions for pay comparability have been elaborated either beforehand or within this legislation. There is no reason, however, why pay comparability must of necessity be deferred until such time as this bill is enacted. In light of the Federal budget cycle we would strongly support a decision by the Congress to proceed on this question immediately. Lastly, sir, I would like to conclude my statement by addressing the question of equal employment opportunity in the Foreign Service. 'It is very clear to us that the Foreign Service has not yet succeeded in attracting sufficient numbers of women and minorities. We would like Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 255 to go. on record, today as stating that, they Association, is committed to actively supporting the goal of equal: opportunity 'for. a11.:But we rec,og- nize that legislation alone cannot bring about'the`changes required to produce a,Fully, representative service Implementation, however; of Service more monetarily and professionally attractive for all, woi.Ad take away the disadvantages we presently suffer in competing with other Government services and with the private', sector for the out- standing people we need. The foreign affairs agencies must produce career'development pro- grams that will assure the growth of all personnel to achieve a more open and balanced service in the years ahead. , [Mr. Stern's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. STERN Mr. Chairman : We are pleased to appear before you today 'to indicate our desire, as the exclusive representative of the 11,000 AID and State Foreign Service employees, to support a new and improved Foreign Service' Act=and to outline our comprehensive proposals for achieving this goal. Incorporation of our proposals would result, we believe, in' an Act which, will" also better serve the national interest than some elements of the present text. Our Association explained to the Joint house Sub-Committee on July 9 and again on September 27 why we could not endorse the proposal as it then stood and presented a detailed analysis of it. Today I wish to review briefly events since that time and describe the essential elements, as we see them, of the proposed bill. W e will ' be giving you a refined, line-by-line analysis which takes into account 'recent develop- ments, our further talks with State's leadership, and testimony' by others before this committee. Our consultations with the leadership of State and AID, ' as well as with our constituency, convince us there is a greater commonality of objectives than may have been immediately apparent. Secretary Vance concurs fully in the basic principles which I am about to present to you. He has expressed his con- fidence that we can reach agreement or substantially narrow our differences on specific points at issue. We share that confidence and are prepared to give sup- port to a bill which secures these principles. There are three elements which are essential to be a new Foreign' Service Act. The role and integrity of the Foreign Service must be preserved and enhanced. Career employees must be assured a strong voice in the evolution of the Foreign Service. Foreign Service employees must be compensated on 'a par with. their Civil Service colleagues and must receive appropriate incentives for 'a lifetime of service abroad. I will concentrate only on those specific points under each' of these elements which are not adequately addressed under the Administration's proposal, with particular attention to areas where consensus has not yet been reached. First, the role and integrity of the Foreign Service nwst be preserved 'and en- lianced. The stripping of the commercial function is but,the latest in a series of events which highlight the need to reaffirm the role of the career Foreign Service as an institution for which there is no credible substitute within our government. Both in the General Provisions of the proposed Act and in its legislative his- tory, we ask the Congress to support a Foreign Service of the United States which : (1) advises and assists the President and Secretary of State in the formulation of foreign policy ; and (2) conducts the full range of U.S. Govern- ment civilian affairs overseas on behalf of the principal foreign affairs agencies and those with major foreign affairs concerns. This will require maximum uniformity of Foreign Service personnel manage- ment, particularly of the Senior Foreign Service, among the individual agencies operating abroad. We have modified our original proposal for Foreign Service Development officers in AID to outright endorsement of the concept of Foreign Serv ice, Officers serving each of the agencies utilizing the authorities of this Act, without artificial labels implying that officers of some agencies are more equal than others. . ' ' Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 On the other hand. AID's recent history would make too'rapid a movement toward compatibility in some areas unwise.'The decline in AID'S. Foreign Service workforce from some 5,500 a decade ago to less than 2,000 today has virtually frozen promotions during that period,, leaving many outstanding officers with many years in class. The sudden application of time-in-class limits would remove these people, from the Service. By the same token', it would make no sense to apply the senior threshold window concept in Sec. 602(a) unless and until there is an established and reasonable time-in-class limit at that level and reasonable ? prospects for promotion above it. The history of AID personnel management clearly indicates that, the applica- tion of such concepts as retirement for excessive 'time-in-class (Sec. 641) or substandard performance (Sec. 642) will have to be gradual, with the full con- sent of the Foreign Service expressed through its exclusive representative. To make clear that AFSA is the` exclusive representative of the affected ? Foreign Service people now that AID has been subsumed by IDCA, we have proposed an amendment at Sec. 2402. The changing roles and aspirations of families of our overseas employees must be an integral part of a comprehensive improvement of the quality of foreign service life for all. The dangers and hardships endured by the foreign service families who ac- company the employee to the far ends of the earth must be acknowledged and addressed with increased opportunities for employment, training and other bene- fits such as vested retirement rights. However, we totally reject the fratricidal implications of the OMB approach which requires that resources for such long overdue reforms be taken out of the hides of our employees. This zero sum game path to rendering justice is unacceptable. In our section-by-section analysis, we provide a number of changes which mandate specific improvements for families, but stipulate as a matter of law that resources and opportunities necessary to realize them may not be reprogrammed to the detriment of the staff corps. -The intake into the Service, career development through the middle grades, and intake into the senior ranks, as well "as just, honorable and secure retirement must be predictable and controlled. Only in this manner can we end the vagaries of successive managers, commissions and boards. The bill provides a number of generally desirable new mechanisms to con- sciously regulate the overall flow through the personnel system. With a few specific changes, many of which management regards as improvements, we strongly support these new mechanisms. However, it is essential that the ap- plication of these authorities be broadly subject to negotiation with the employee representative to prevent any possible abuse. Ultimately, however, the preservation and enhancement of the Service's ability to serve the national interest can only be accomplished if the Administration and Congress provide the financial and personnel resources necessary for us to ac- complish our mission. We can no longer, survive shifting resources from one important activity to another, such as reducing political reporting to provide administrative services. The United States cannot continue to maintain a strong international diplomatic position in the complex world of the '80s by deploying fewer people than it did in the '50s. In all candor, we must admit that some of the failures that have been laid at the doorstep of other agencies can be 'attributed to the Department of State, which should properly be this nation's first and internationally accepted means of assessing political and economic trends in areas where our vital national in- terests are engaged. The Association would not be so simplistic as to suggest that the reduction of substantive reporting positions abroad is solely responsible for the failure in the world arena which are all to familiar. Nevertheless, it is a significant factor. In the face of the challenges ahead, we think it irresponsible that the FY 1981 budget for the State Department put forward by the Office of Management and Budget proposes further cuts in reporting positions, language and other training. It is inconceivable to us that at a time when the entire nation is aware of the importance of our relations with foreign countries our ability to deal with them will be further reduced. We know that you in the Congress have called attention to the fact that we have not had sufficient numbers of officers trained in such languages as Fars!, and you are right. Yet what we see is the Office of Manage- ment and Budget proposing to reduce that number even further. In this context, the Foreign Service is appalled by the ill-conceived Reorgani- zation Plan No. 3 which was recently presented to the Congress in the name of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 "strengthening and improving" the U.S. commercial promotion overseas. This "reform", which has stripped the State Department of about 600 positions (in- eluding 162 American positions) at the most important commercial posts for transfer to Commerce may, in fact, mask an actual reduction in the resources committed to this function. We understand that OMB is purposefully procras- tinating on releasing many of the new positions to Commerce in the name of budget stringencies. It may be a number of years before on-line U.S. commercial promotion strength in these posts recovers from this reorganization. Even then, we fear that the "separate commercial promotion function" will atrophy rather than prosper.,The various U.S. interests within a given country can, however, be made mutually reinforcing if integrated under the Ambassador and backstopped by the Department of State. While hoping that this "reorganization" plan can be reversed, the Association urges the Senate, to clearly specify that the "balkanization" of the Foreign Service stops here. The integrity of, the Foreign Service must not be further impaired. . Second, career employees must be assured a strong voice in the evolution of the Foreign Service. The proposed Act will give foreign affairs management broad new,authorities for administering the Foreign Service. While we know where we stand under existing legislation and Executive Orders, we do not know how .successive administrations will attempt to implement these authori- ties. We also need to guard against possible political abuses in the future. There- fore, the safeguards of an effective employee organization are essential if there is to be a new Foreign Service Act. In order to play a creative, responsible influential role, our employee organiza- tion must be,as broadly based as possible. Since its inception, Executive Order 1.1636 has served the Foreign Service well. We see no need for exclusions from the bargaining unit beyond management officials and confidential employees as defined in this Executive Order. Additional exclusions, as proposed in the bill, must be minimized in legislative history and in practice. Exclusion of "supervisors" along the lines of Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 would be intolerable, because it would disenfranchise more than half of the Foreign Service, whose need to participate in collective bargaining is in-no way diminished when they are assigned as supervisors under our rank-lu-Person system. Our scope of bargaining must be as broad as that accorded the Civil Service. For example, Disputes Panel decisions, like Civil Service arbitration awards, must be final. .Indeed our unique and essential rank-in-person system, and the special demands-of career service abroad, require the broadest possible negotiat- ing mandate. We must be able to negotiate in advance the implementation of such provisions of the Bill as: (1) precepts for tenure, promotion and selection out; (2) changes of time in class; (3) definition of concepts such as "worldwide availability" and "the needs of the Service" ; and (4) ranges of promotion and attrition rates. This concept is essential to a new Foreign Service Act. We would adamantly oppose an Act which granted management major new authorities with- out providing those whose careers they affect a handle to prevent the abuse of these authorities. We could only accept the imposed monopoly on grievance representation if its inclusion would not then be used to further reduce the size of the bargaining unit in the name of preventing conflict of interest. This would be a heavy burden on our resources since we have dedicated professional staff precisely to provide independent representation to grievants. Indeed, we would prefer that the monopoly on access to the grievance board not be imposed. Rather, we would ask for a stipulation in law that employees retain free access to the grievance board, but that no finding by the board may operate to impair a duly concluded labor-management agreement. In cases of dispute, the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel would be charged with determining, whether such an infringement exists. We will provide specific language in our line-by-line recommendations to accommodate this change. Aside from the above and some particular word changes, we are favorably impressed with the grievance proposals in Chapter XI. Finally, the Foreign Service must be compensated on a par with the Civil Service and must receive appropriate incentives for a lifetime of service abroad. If we are to attract. develop and retain the talented people we need from all segments of our society, they must be able to make reasonable predictions about their futures in the Service. They must also receive tangible benefits for pur- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 suing a career which, takes them away. from home for much of their'lives; exposes. them to hardships 'and dangers and frequently thrusts incredible responsibilities on them. . , For the Staff Corps this means : (1) compensation' built into the salary struc- 'ture for the "overseas factor" and a renewed assessment, of the extra responsi- bilities, they assume abroad; (2) pay authorisation for the long hours they are aegillarly on .standby duty-the functional 'equivalent of house arrest. ; FOi, the Senior. Service it 'means an end to exclusion from hfiid hi pay, for Ambassadors. With five Ambassadors assassinated in the past decade,,more than all ITS. generals killed by hostile fire, in Vietnam, Ambassadors do not deserve this exclusion. This exclusion also acts as a cap on the hardship pay for senior officers under them. In addition, senior personnel are entitled to compensation ranges on a.level with the Senior'Executive Service. The Service is divided on the question of "performance pay." Since it is the only means now ''available for'providing equitable compensation for our senior ranks, we will not oppose its enactment. It is essential there be guarantees of its. protection from political' abuse and of impartial distribution through the Selec- tiOa Boards. We must emphasize, however, that it is not financial incentives but the standard of excellence which has provided our real motivation for superior service. For the first time, senior AID Foreign Service personnel would become, as members of the Senior Foreign Service, presidential appointees, with an oppor- tiinity to be promoted to the highest rank, now called Career Minister. Political abuse of the system should be reduced by deletion from the Foreign. Assistance Act' of the anachronistic Administratively-determined as well as the 631 B per- sonnel appointment authorities. Together, these sections allow the Agency to appoint some 185 officers from outside the career service-over 100 of whom may be given supergrade status, thereby negatively impacting on 'both AID's profes- sionalism and its employees' opportunities for advancement. Moreover, we have urged that the legislative history of Sec. 311(a) (3) and (b) (1) explicitly include AID and. USICA 'members of the Senate for appointment as Chiefs of Mission. We would include IDCA also, if it becomes part of the Foreign Service Com- munity, which it clearly should. Organizations such as IDCA which deal exclu- sively in the foreign affairs area should not be staffed exclusively by civil serv- ants who do not serve overseas and therefore cannot fully understand the impact of the policies they establish. Almost ten years ago the Congress enacted 5 USC 5301 et seq.1 which explicity called for equal pay for equal work for the Civil Service and the Foreign Service. In 1978 the Congress directed and authorized funds for the State Department to conduct a study of pay comparability between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. The Department, with "OMB concurrence, hired Hay Associates, the leading American firm in the field of pay comparability analysis to conduct the study. The Hay findings conclusively prove that existing Foreign Service-Civil Service pay linkages are inequitable. Continuation of these inequities is unlaw- ful. The State Department, the Agency for International Development and the International Communications Agency have accepted Hay's findings and have recommended to the Office of Management and Budget adoption of proper.linkages as recommended by Hay. OMB has chosen ,to ignore the intent of the- Congress, the evidence of the study and the advice of the agencies and instead seeks to substitute the findings of a study done more than five years ago by the then Civil Service Commission. We note in this connection that in the transformation of the ? Civil Service Commission into the Office of Personnel Management, Hay Associ- ates was selected by OPM as an expert and impartial consultant. We ask the Senate to insist that the intent of the Congress to rectify this long- standing injustice be realized unequivocally, setting into law pay parity between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service at the Hay recommended linkages. We could not support this Act unless necessary provisions for pay comparability have been elaborated, either beforehand or within this legislation. There: is no reason, however, why pay comparability must of necessity be deferred until such time as this bill is enacted. In light of the federal budget cycle, we would strongly support a decision by the Congress to proceed on this question immediately. In sum, the Foreign Service Act should contain these three essential elements : Enhancement of the role and integrity of the Service ; A strong voice for the career Service determining conditions of employment ; Full pay parity with the Civil Service. 'If these three essential questions are adequately addressed, we will actively support the Act. The Association is prepared to work with the Congress and the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Administration to develop the'kind of bill which will be a new and welcome''bezlch- mark.in the-history of. the Foreign Service. I wish to conclude, my statement by addressing the question of Equal_, mploy- ment Opporturiity in the Foreign Service. It is clear that the Foreign' Service has not yet succeeded in attracting stif elent numbers of women and minorities. I want to go on record today as:stating that the -American'.Foreign Service Association is committed to actively supporting the, goal of equal opportunity for all. We are in complete agreement with the explicit application of the principles contained in 5 USC 2301(b) (~') and (2) to the Foreign Service. Legislation alone, however, cannot bring about the changes required to produce a fully representative service. Unless, by implementing the three principles I have outlined, the Foreign Service is made more monetarily and. professionally attractive for all and unless flow is restored to the personnel system, we .will continue to be disadvantaged in competing with the Civil Service and the private sector for the outstanding;people we need. Foreign Affairs agencies. must produce career development programs that will assure the growth of all . their Foreign Service personnel to. achieve a more open and balanced Service in the years ahead. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. There are a couple of specific questions here if I could.. In connection, with the point you made of the standby pay, do you favor standby pay of this sort for those who have to just call in oc- casionally or answer a beeper but are otherwise free to travel ,as long as they are within a convenient distance from the Embassy; or-would you recommend it only for those few employees who must remain on standby right within practically walking range, a 10-minute driving range of the Embassy? Mr. STERN.. That will be a very difficult line to draw, sir, .and I,must admit we haven't attempted to shave it quite that finely. Our main feel- ing is to those posts where we know that people don't have.the. freedom of movement, where we recognize that telephonic communications are grossly inadequate, if they don't. stay at their home literally they,may not be reached. We'realize that many of these people are. on standby not only on the weekend but all through the night as well. because. we don't have adequate staffs, particularly such groups as communicators. We need to find ways of properly compensating these people., Hope- fully, we can do?it.by looking at the base pay. It is certainly our pref- erence to see, the overseas dimension incorporated into . the base pay rate rather than an allowance which may or may not apply ,.at a,given time or another. But we would certainly, want. to look at some of the places where, the hardships are more evident than others. ? .; , The CHAIRMAN. Why do you believe that there should be thj.s wide- ranging representation? Don't you think communicators. and. ,~ecre- taries have rather different interests from Foreign Service,officers?. Mr. STERN. Not necessarily, sir, because we all serve overseas. We are all concerned about ,whether or not we are going to have a: baggage allowance. We. are all concerned by the same uniform regulations,which are handed down by the foreign affairs agencies and apply to the, lowest' ranking staff person or the, most senior Ambassador m.. t$e. service. This is the unique quality. There are not separate regulations, based- on rank but rather a uniform set of regulations that apply to. any person that is. Foreign Service. We recognize certainly that not, teyer,ybody within the Service has identical interests. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 And for this reason we have established task forces so that we can have the expertise. With me at the table today, for example, we have a representative of the staff, we have a specialist on pay, we have a specialist on personnel flowthrough so as to be able to address the totality of the interests of the Service. But I don't believe the staff corps would advocate a separate organization for themselves. And I don't feel that, speaking as one officer, I would want to see them split away. We have too close a relationship. Mr. MCBRIDE. Senator, if I might add fora moment, having been 205 involved intimately in the Foreign Service since I came back on the last night of evacuation from Saigon, having been involved intimately ?~ in the Foreign Service Association, I think there are a number of re- forms that we need to accomplish. I can tell you personally that if the broad and extensive unit that we have to bargain with is broken up, we would suffer from a balkanization, a setting off of one interest against the other, which would only totally vitiate in my view any effective representation of employee interest. And in the process we would find that the new manager who harkens only to his immediate political boss and has no concept of the Foreign Service tradition of service going back now for over one century, we would find the employee attachment and devotion would be destroyed. We would lose our ability to effectively represent our people. The CIIAmMAN. You may be right. I have always felt that the Foreign Service per se is very much in the nearest analogy to the military service, similar to the Marine Corps. They are dedicated. I tell young Foreign Service people when they come up to the Hill, that in civilian life the profession may be more akin to that of the clergy. You go into it for a life of service, not to become a bishop. And the Foreign Service should have that idea even more. The Am- bassador's brief case is not in every man's luggage, the life of service is, the same way as the general's stars are not necessarily in every military man's baggage, wlien he goes to an academy. But this point of service is very important. ? And I think it is one that should be kept in mind. Mr..McBRIDE. Sir, I can only tell you now that the Foreign Service Association maintains the plaque on which the navies of 46 of our colleagues have been recorded since 1965. I personally went and counted those names. I knew a number of them. The Foreign Service Associa- tion speaks to the interest of the staff corps who were frying, along with our officers, in Islamabad, and to the interests of the staff corps, the communicators, and the secretary who was one of the 13 released from Teheran.and stayed until the last night with me in Saigon. All bean say is there is a commonality in the Foreign Service of this commitment from the top and bottom, staff and officer alike, of this spirit of commitment to service. This spirit must be maintained. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is a point, too, the American Foreign Service Association and the other groups that represent you should emphasize a great deal more. And I think ou would do better rather than scratching around for comparability to* the Civil Service. It ought to be comparability to the Marine Corps. I think you would find the response would be better. I don't think you emphasize that good point enough. One of the things about the bonus pay is that it goes in just the opposite direction. I don't imagine a Marine, Corps general or Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 261 coloiiel; gets le'is'katioiip'r'oposing a bonus pay. for a colbnel!;who does a good job; I don't imagine that would get very far. A colonel who does a good job is more likely to become a general very quickly. That is the difference. I would say the same thing for the Senior Foreign Service officer; if he does a good. job, he may. not get the money for the garage that year but is more.'likely to: move, on to aiiother'.assignm'ent' which will either give him a garage door or in- creased" interest.' Mr. Seth. Sir,' we, couldn't agree more. We are a' Service. We be- lieve in service. But at the same time we recognize that just as a corporation seeking to attract the finest people from the universities will sometimes 'up the bidding ,a little bit, we have to recognize there is' some of this competition beginning at the bottom. With our con- cept of up or out we are in a sense encouraging everybody .to think that they have' that marshall's baton in their knapsack. We are a very small service. If I may, I would like to introduce Bill Veale, who is our expert on pay, who can address this comment, particularly tol the military an- alogy. Bill is a former military officer as well. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. VEALE, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION Mr. VF.er.E. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start out by pointing out the Foreign Service is an institution which has similarities to both the military.and the' Civil Service but is compensated less favorably than either. I am a' major in the Reserves, that is a rank equivolent to my FSO-5 rank. When I go on active duty for 12 days I bring home-not on per diem-$150 more on that paycheck, partly because of the quarter's allowance the military enjoys any time they are not occupying Government quarters. I cite this just as one example. We have long believed the Foreign Service deserved full' pay, parity with the Civil Service. This is in fact because the law calls for equal pay with the Civil Service, and a linkage with the Civil. Service. We appreciate the support the Congress has given that led to the Hay study. We do not see common salaries with the Civil Service as.threat- ening the independence of the Foreign Service. The independence of the Foreign Service we believe must stand on stronger grounds. We generally support the Hay findings which made clear the need for upward adjustments of junior and mid-level salary levels and defended the salaries of the staff corps. However, we 'are dismayed that the Hay recommendations are reflected only in the first two of the four pay options developed by an OMB-chaired interagency task force. These four options are first, an option that advocates 10 classes. The second option calls for nine classes. Both of these have the same kind of linkages with the Civil Service that Hay recommended and paral- leled the recomendations of Hay. The other two options are 'also nine class options which have much less favorable linkages with the Civil Service scales. While our Association would prefer the' 10-class solution proposed by Hay, we have made clear our willingness to settle for immediate implementation of Hay's 9-class recommendation, that is, the task Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 force's second option. In doing so we joined a consensus for option 2 supported by all the foreign affairs agencies and the Board of Foreign Service. We understand the Secretary of State is also personally committed to option 2 and intends to give the pay issue first priority in the Department's budget. Opposed to this position, however, are OMB and OPM supporting the fourth option, the lowest, based on an out-of-date 1974 position survey by the Civil Service Commission that even failed to take ac- count of the overseas dimension of foreign service work, one aspect of which we are all reading in the papers now. We"are particularly chagrined that ,01M has tried to structure the options paper to favor a compromise on the third option, slightly better than option 4 but still not consistent with the Hay findings. And we are appalled that on an issue where so much is at stake, for the future of the Foreign Service the selection of the final pay option is to be made on budgetary grounds-because OMB views State's budget as a "controllable" expense. But what kind of price tags are we really talking about? For im- mediate implementation in all foreign affairs agencies option 1 would cost $33.8 million; option 2, for which we would settle, would cost $30.5 million; option 3 would cost $21.7 million; and option 4 would cost $15.2 million. We are talking then about a spread of $20 million. Mr. Chairman, in our view this is peanuts, not much more than the cost of one F-14 Tomcat ; a fighter aircraft of the type now rotting on airfields in Iran. The CnAIRMAN. Normally I would agree but don't forget that that is a dime for every man, woman, and child in America. You have to ask every man, woman, and child do they really want to pay this much more. Mr.'VEAr.E. It is a question of the long-term objective, of what it does for the Foreign Service. To conclude, I would say that the Foreign Service is well aware of Hay's findings. We have come to look on the pay issue as a symbol that in these trying times somebody cares about the Foreign Service. Any solution to the pay problem short of immediate implementation of option 2 will create a real crisis of morale. In the face of the uncertainties of a restructured Foreign Service there 'will undoubtedly be resignations of well-qualified people, as there already have been. Especially in the middle ranks the caliber of entrants will sag. In the end, we feel the American people will be ill: served by a Foreign Service that is less qualified and less representative. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. REMOVAL OF PAY INCENTIVE FEATURE In essence then, you support the legislation but with some changes and you would not be adverse to the removal of the pay incentive feature. Would that be a correct statement.? Mr. STERN. That would be, yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. From, the viewpoint of the staff corps. I have heard some questions, I have'had some secretaries come up to me and say they were unhappy about it. What is your reaction, madam? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Ms. AUSTIN; With regard. to the act! The CHAIRMAN. Yes.. Ms. AUSTIN. Basically I don't think that secretaries per se have any problems with it. It is more in line with the communicators who have had some problems with the idea of selection out of time in class. While the staff corps supports the idea of selection out and time in class as a means of getting our ranks, but we make sure we have only the best in the Foreign Service The CHAIRMAN. I must say I have had some members of the staff corps very vigorously say they do not support the concept. Ms. AUSTIN. We are divided on. the issue. There is no doubt about that. But I think we would definitely settle for the idea that we could accept time in class for selection out if it were grandfathered for the people currently in the Foreign Service and implemented for those who would be newly coming into the Foreign Service and who would be coming in with the understanding that time in class and selection out is the procedure. The CHAIRMAN. Does the legislation grandfather them in now? Mr. McBRIDE. Sir, the provisions are being made in the legislation and in amendments we have worked out with management based upon these kinds of concerns to grandfather. The grandfather is presently for 5 years I believe. And we would expand that to 10 years. I: would have to doublecheck it. The CHAIRMAN. In the bill as presently written it is not. Ms. AUSTIN. No, sir, it is not. Mr. STERN. It is on our line by line. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. McBRmE. No, but management would agree with.us. The CHAIRMAN. On the Foreign Service and the pay incentive busi- ness, if that is dropped out completely what will be the reaction of the American Foreign Service Association? Mr. STERN:ou are referring now strictly to the performance pay aspect? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir, that one specific point. Mr. STERN. If that were struck out-and as I said, we have chosen not to oppose,it rather than say we support it-we could. live with it. The CHAIRMAN. Right. Thank you very much. Are there any other points? Mr. McBRIDE. Could I make one briefly and speaking to what Am- bassador Herz talked about, which is the danger of the Senior Service becoming terrorized by political manipulation, we are very concerned about that ::kind of problem. And we have proposed a number of changes which we would propose to work over with your staff in great detail to make sure -that does not happen. One of those specific changes turns to section.612 which the Ambassador cited in which as presently drafted the law would permit inclusion of all sorts of material, in- cluding perspective assignability in decisions, in material being put before selection boards for retention or selection out if you would. We would, delete that. material totally from the law so that anything and everything that is to be, put before a selection board must be subject to negotiation. with the exclusive bargaining .agent to protect Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 ,our individual officers and staff from any return to a McCarthy ap- proach of approaching the Senior Foreign Service.. The second thing is we offer a number of suggestions, some of which 'management will accept, which will address again the.'board issue of the negotiability of the application of the various attrition mechanisms they will now be able to employ under this concept. We think that very important, sir. We think that we can start with a. service which will. permit a regular and a balanced flowthrough but which will not lead to either political abuse or will not lead to senior officers having to constantly look over their shoulders and say the junior officers have gotten to the Secretary and they are going to ax me, because that is not what we .want. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. One final question. Obviously when it comes to assignments, certain personnel factors enter into it. If a Foreign Service officer has a spouse, be that spouse a male or a female, who is an alcoholic, for example, that could have an effect on the assignment of where the person goes. As I understand the present rules, you are not supposed to- have in your personnel jacket that fact; is that correct? Mr. STERN. I believe the way it read, sir, is that you may only have in the jacket that which is germane to the performance of the work. So if we had a person illustratively that is an alcoholic but presently under treatment The CHAIRMAN. Or the spouse. Mr. STERN. Or the spouse The CHAIRMAN. If he is an alcoholic he shouldn't be in the service in my view. Mr. -STERN. Well, we would not necessarily of course know whether a spouse was or was not an alcoholic but for the sake of the assumption, if it was not deemed that this would detract from the ability of the person. to perform the job, then it should not be indicated. If in fact it was something where the spouse had abused privileges' o'r position, this would have to be a matter of record because it directly impacts on the ability to perform. But we are dealing with some very fine lines in social legislation which have come through fairly recently. And I am not an attorney myself. I feel I am about to get into very deep water.' I might ask for our attorney to comment on it. The CHAIRMAN. I won't go further on it, but I would just state in- stances I have known in the past year where the spouse ofd the Foreign Service officer can be a tremendous help to that Foreign Service officer or can absolutely ruin him. And I think this is a factor that should be taken into account. At any rate, I thank you very much indeed, gentle- men, for being with us. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record.] ' AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE AssoCIATION, Washington, D.C., December 18, 1979. Senator CI.aiBORNE PELT, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENAToB PELL: The American Foreign Service Association appreciated the opportunity to testify before the Foreign Relations Committee December 14 on the proposed new Foreign Service Act. I regret that illness' prevented my appearing personally. In view of the specific questions you raised regarding Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 "performance pay" for the Senior Foreign Service, the Board of Directors of our association believes the following supplemental information' on our position might be useful to you. We are proud of our traditions of excellence and willingess to walk in harms way in the service, of our nation. Financial incentives have never been the prime motivation of the Foreign Service but they are of course important to our employees and their families and they should be compatible with those of our colleagues elsewhere in the Federal Government. The Congress chose in the Foreign Service .Act of 1946 to establish points of linkage between the Foreign Service and Civil Service pay scales. In 1978 it mandated the -review of those link points. It also passed the Civil Service Reform Act which inter alia estab- lished.Performance Pay for the Civil Service which could exceed the Federal Pay Ceiling. Subsequently, the mandated study on pay linkage established that certain categories of foreign service personnel were indeed substantially under- paid when.comparing the content of their jobs to those of the Civil Service. At the same time, the Administration chose to include "performance pay" for the Senior Foreign Service in its proposals for a new Foreign Service Act. The American Foreign Service Association has taken the position that any new legislation must include provisions for full pay parity with our colleagues elsewhere in the Government for all categories of personnel. In the case of linkage of pay scales all that is required is an immediate change in link points as proposed in the Hay Associates Study. "Performance pay" presents a more complicated picture because it implies that our senior officers might perform better if competing among themselves for additional pay and because it would require new administrative mechanisms which might be subject to abuse. These are valid concerns. The Association would prefer some other means for assuring adequate compensation for the Senior Foreign Service but believes that these concerns can be overcome through adequate language in the law. However, no alternative has been proposed either by the Congress or the Administration. We have been told that alternatives such as a 15% overseas allowance are politically infeasible. We would support an alternative to "performance pay" which provided compensation levels for the foreign service as high as those elsewhere in government service. In the absence of such an alternative, however, the Association could .not support a new Foreign Service Act which established pay ceilings for the Senior Foreign Service below the Senior Civil Service. It is for this reason that we cannot oppose "performance pay" for the Senior Foreign Service, the only means now available to assure pay parity. We would appreciate your making this supplemental material part of the record on the Foreign Service Act hearings. Sincerely, KENNETH W. BLEAKLEY, President. UPDATED SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL To PROMOTE THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES BY STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING THE FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES [Submitted by: American Foreign Service Association] CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 101 (a) (1) (p. 2), insert after Foreign Service "of the United States," Comment : Emphasis on the national, interdepartmental character of the Service. Sec. 101 (a) (3) (p. 2), add in first line "that the members of the Foreign Service . . ." Insert after "languages, and." Comment : Each member of the Service should strive to be representative of the American people and to remain truly American rather than becoming too foreign or cosmopolitan. Sec. 101 (a) (1F) (p. 2), add new subsection (4) "that the Foreign Service should be operated on the basis of merit principles ; and Comment : It is desirable to reaffirm that the merit principles of the Civil Service Reform Act apply to the Foreign Service as indeed they do by the terms of 5 U.S.C. 2301 (b) (1). NOTE : A d next to a section number indicates a change in our line-by-line since our October 17, 1979 submission. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 . Sec. 101 (a). (5) (p. 2), add new subsection (5) "that the growing scope and complexity of the nation's foreign affairs has heightened the need for a profes- sional Foreign Service that will serve the foreign affairs interests of the United States in an integrated fashion and that can provide a resource of qualified per- sonnel for the President, the Secretary of State and the agencies concerned with foreign .affairs. Comment: This addition explicitly acknowledges that the need for a Foreign Service of the United States is increasing due to world events. Section-by-Section Analysis : Add new paragraph under Findings and Objec- tives, following paragraph ending "merit principles :" "Finally, this section finds that our growing and increasingly complex foreign affairs has heightened the need for a professional Foreign Service to serve the President, the Secretary of State, and the various agencies concerned with foreign affairs." Comment : This emphasizes the broad scope of responsibilities envisioned for the Foreign Service. See.,101 (b) (6) (p. 4), insert new phrase "to provide compensation, including salaries . " Comment : This wording clarifies the concept that it is "compensation" in its broadest sense and not merely certain elements of it which encourages and re- wards outstanding performance. Section-by-Section Analysis: Revise para on Section 101 (b) (6) to read: "Section 101 (b) (6), drawn from section 111 (7) of the 1946 Act, 'states that the Act will provide salaries, allowances and benefits compensation that will at- tract and retain qualified personnel, and .,as well as incentive payments and awards to encourage and reward outstanding performance. Compensation for the Foreign Service must take into account the conditions of overseas service re- ferred to in Section 101 (b) (5)." Comments : The additions make clear the intent to minimize the impact of the hardships, 'disruptions and other unusual conditions of overseas service upon the members of the Foreign Service and to mitigate the special impact of such conditions upon their families. Sec. 101 (b) (9) (p. 4), revises subsection to read: "(9) to increase efficiency and economy by promoting maximum compatibility uniformity of personnel man- agement among the agencies authorized to utilize the Foreign Service personnel system particularly in the Senior Foreign Service as well as compatibility between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service ; and" Comment : Just as there is a single Civil Service system flexible enough to serve the interests of the individual domestic U.S. agencies, there should be a Foreign Service with a Senior Foreign Service component paralleling the Senior Executive Service which serves U.S. national interests abroad. Sec. IOu (2) (p. 7), insert as follows: "provide guidance for the formulation and conduct of United States foreign policy and programs ... " Comment : This establishes that the Foreign Service advises the President and Secretary on foreign policy in addition to executing it. Section-by-Section Analysis, para 3 (p. 7), insert as follows: "Section 104(2) states that members of the Foreign Service shall provide guidance for the formulation and conduct of United States foreign policy and for the formulation and conduct of Government . . " Comment : See comment on 104 (2) above. CHAPTER 2-MANAGEMENT OF THE SERVICE Sec. 202 (a) Section-by-Section (p. 9), add: "It is expected that these agencies will use all the appointment authorities in the Act. For example, the Inter- national Development Cooperation Agency will establish a Foreign Service 0 ffjcer corps." Comment : In order to enhance compatibility among the Foreign affairs agen- cies and the status of the international development function, the law should strongly encourage the establishment of a Foreign Service Officer corps in IDCA, parallel with FSO's in State and FSIO's in USICA. The categories of personnel who would be so appointed would be worked out subsequently by regulation. Sec. 206 (p. 13) Comment : We strongly support the re-establishment in law of the Board of the Foreign Service. We agree with the composition and functions of the Board described in Sec. 206 and its analysis. We welcome the proviso that a career Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 member of the Senior Foreign Service chair the Board, and we believe that a majority of Board Members should likewise be career Members of the Senior Foreign Service. Only those domestic agencies with government-wide respon- sibilities (OPM and OMB) or which use the Foreign Service overseas but have none of their own (Commerce and Labor) should be represented. To insure that the Board can function as an independent and useful source of advice to the Secretary and other foreign affairs agency heads, it should have a staff, like that of the FSLRB In Chapter 10 or the FSGB in Chapter 11, independent of agency management and responsible only to it. Its career Foreign Service members should be neither officials of the exclusive employee representative :nor management officials as defined in Sec. 1002(10) (F). It should not only respond to requests from agency heads for advice on issues arising under the Foreign Service Act on the Secretary's government-wide authority, but also initiate such advice. In forming its judgments, it should feel free to hear rep- resentatives of both agency management and the exclusive representative. Sec. 311 (a) (1) (p. 17), add: "The President shall provide the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sen- ate, with each nomination for a chief of mission position, a report on that nominee's demonstrated competence to perform the duties of chief of mission .in the country in which he or she is to serve." Section-by-Section, add: Additionally, it requires a report from the President to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the competence of his. or her .nominees, measured against these criteria." Comment : This provision will improve the Senate's ability to judge the quali- fications of a nominee, and deter the nominations of inadequately qualified ,persons. Sec. 311(a) (3) (p. 18), and Section-by-Section change to read "(3) for to the .maximum extent practicable . . Comment: This change parallels, the language of Sec. 311 (a) (1) with respect to the qualifications of a chief o? mission and reflects the previously expressed sense of Congress (Sec. 120, P.L. 94-350 (90 Stat. 829) that "a greater number of positions of ambassador should be occupied by career personnel of the Foreign Service." . Sec. 311(b) (1) (p. 18), Section-by-Section, add: "It is expected that Foreign Service personnel from the foreign affairs agencies other than the Department of State will receive fair consideration for Chief of Mission nominations." Comment: IDCA and USICA Foreign Service personnel should receive fair cosideration for Chief of Mission positions. Sec. 321. (p. 19), Section-by-Section, add : "As noted in the analysis of. sec- tion 511(b), the number of non-Foreign Service personnel serving in Foreign Service positions (which includes those serving under limited appointments in the Service) is not expected to exceed the number of Foreign Service personnel assigned to non-Foreign Service positions." . Comment : This reflects the expectation that the present balance of exchange in senior assignments between the Foreign Service and the rest of the,Govern- -?ment will be maintained lest Foreign Service promotion and assignment oppor- tunities be reduced. Sec. 322. (p. 19), Section-by-Section, line 10, insert after "....be for four years" : Career members of the Senior Foreign Service will normally be ap- pointed by the promotion (cf Sec. 602) of career personnel who will have established records of performance in the Foreign Service. Career candidates at .the SFS level will be appointed from outside the career Service only in extraor- dinary cases where the needs of the Service cannot otherwise efficiently be met. Accordingly, such candidates will serve not less than four years in proba- fiionary status so that their qualifications for career status can be thoroughly .evaluated. Comment: This section provides clear safeguards that the new mechanism for accepting career candidates directly into the Senior Foreign Service will be con- -trolled. This will ensure that candidates' demonstrated competence for top level management have been carefully evaluated and confirmed before career status is conferred. The aggregate number of such outside appointments should not un- dermine the predominance of appointments from within the career service which Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 is necessary to maintain healthy flow rates throughout the Service in recognition of meritorious performance. Sec. 322 (.p. 19) .Section-by-Section. Add the following a.s..the new final sentence in the first paragraph: Appointments;to the highest rank of the Senior Foreign Service shall be from the ranks of those who have already achieved career status. ? Comment: This parallels the provision of the existing law that all,?appoint- ments to the.highest rank of career minister must come from the ranks of career Class 1 officers. Sec. 323 (p. 20) Comment : Reference to "class higher than class 4" should be reviewed to bring it into conformity with determination of classes under Section 421 once that provision has been established. Amend Sec: 333 (b) to read as follows : V 333(b.)..Employment of family. members in accordance w-iththis section may not be used to avoid fulfilling the need for full-time career positions. Sec. 833(b) Section-by-Section, insert "full-time" before "positions." Comment: This change is consistent with existing law (Sec. 413, P.L. 95- 426, 92 Stat 963) which makes it clear that full-time American career positions should-not be abolished in order to create those positions, sometimes part-time, temporary, or ? Intermittent (PIT) , for family members. Such action -.of creat- ing PIT positions reduces promotion and assignment opportunities for current career members of the Foreign Service. Our" proposed change is not intended to impede increases in job opportunities for family: members, or innovations concerning job-sharing overseas. CHAPTER 4-COMPENSATION See. 462 (p. 36), Section-by-Section, and Table of Contents-Change "Allow- ances" to "Differential." Comment : The special allowance, unlike other allowances available to gov- ernment employees overseas, but like the post differential, is taxable, and estab- lished as a percentage of basic salary. Also unlike overseas allowances, it can be paid for positions in Washington. Calling it a differential would be more logical. V Sec. 462, Section-by-Section, change to read : "Section 462 authorizes the Secretary to pay special differentials in addition to other compensation to all Foreign Service officers who are required to per- form additional work on a regular basis in substantial excess of normal re- quirements. It is contemplated that o7}1cers who must work an average of at least 50 hours per week, receive special differentials at the rate of not less than 25 percent of basic salary. This section is identical in substance to section 451 of the 1946 Act, and is in lieu of overtime or other premium pay under sub- chapter V of Chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code. The Department shall not take advantage of the ineligibility of FS0's for premium pay by requiring them to work when work is not really essential, or avoiding the need to ask for more personnel whenever necessary to perform the Department's mission." Comment: As indicated below (Sec. 2301 (3) ), AFSA seeks the repeal of the premium pay ban on FSOs. If this is not possible, we seek at least to mitigate the injustices with which the special allowances have been administered. The Department, adding insult to injury, claims that the legislative history of the provision excludes FSO-3's (new FS-1s) and special assistants to Presidential appointees of Executive Level 3 and above ; limits the total eligible to approxi- mately 100 In State ; defines "substantially in excess of normal requirements" as 55 hours per week ; and provides as a special allowance only 12 to 18 percent over basic salary. The premium pay ban and special allowance limits also en- courage the Department to overwork FSOs rather than adjust its workload to seek additional resources. The new sectional analysis would correct these problems. Sec. 462 (p. 36), after "authorized" Insert "(a)" and line 25, add: "or (b) to Foreign Service personnel who are required by the nature of their assignments overseas to remain on call on a regular basis for substantial periods of time out- side normal duty hours." Section-by-Section, add: "Subsection (b) would apply the concept of the special differential to Foreign Service personnel required by the nature of their assignments overseas to remain on call on a regular basis for substantial periods of time outside normal duty hours." Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Comment ; B any Foreign Service. personnel,: especially secretaries and com- municators at small posts overseas,. are required to remain on "stand-by duty" or, on.call :for extremely long periods of time, but are. not compensated except and to the extent that they are required during such periods to come in to work. The, concept of the special allowance, of a certain percentage of basic salary, is an appropriate way to compensate personnel for such a substantial loss of free time. CnAPTER 5-CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS Sec. 511(b) (1) (p. 38, line 1) Insert after "filled by" "the assignment for speci.- Jicd tours of duty :.." Section-by-Section Analysis, first paragraph, add : "The number of such. per- sonnel.is not expected to exceed the number of Foreign Service personnel as- signed to non-Foreign Service positions." Comment : All Foreign Service personnel assignments are for specific tours of duty, normally for two or three years. Similarly, an assignment of a non-Foreign Service employee to a Foreign Service position should be for a specific period of time after which the assignment could be renewed or another person assigned to the. position: The purpose of revising the legislative history is to reflect the expectation that Foreign Service assignment and promotion opportunities will not be adversely affected by reversing the present balance in assignments be- tween the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. Sec. 521(a) (4) (p. 39). Section-by-Section analysis, add following at end of paragraph : "A substantial number of Foreign Service personnel should be given assignments under this paragraph." Comment : This restores the original concept of the "Pearson Amendment" (Sec. 572 of the Act of 1946 as amended). The legislative history should reflect the sense of. Congress that such assignments are important to a comprehensive career development program. See. 521(b) (1) (p. 39), first sentence. Insert "the higher of" before "the salary" ; and in the following line delete irrespective and insert "or". Also, revise the accompanying legislative history by amending all of paragraph four before the last sentence to read as follows: 521(b) (1) preserves the rule established by 571 (c) of the 1946 Act that a member of the Service assigned under this section will receive the salary of his or her Foreign Service class. or, when assigned to a non-Foreign Service position, the salary of the position to which the member is assigned if. it is higher than the salary of the member's class." [Continue with existing last sentence.] Comment: . This is consistent with the existing law and with the concept of equal pay for equal work which is part of merit system principles. .. V Sec. 531(a) (p. 41). Amend last sentence to read : No .member of the Service may be assigned.to duty within the United States upon initial appointment, for a period to exceed three years, or for any period of continuous service exceeding eight years unless the Secretary approves an extension of such period in special circumstances. V Sec. 531. Section-by-Section : Delete last sentence of first paragraph and insert : "The limitation of three years initial service carries forward the policy of sec. 625(d) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act, 22 U.S.C. 2385(d) (2). The limitation of eight years continuous service carries forward the policy of section 571 (a) of the 1946 Act." Sec. 531(a). (p. 41). Section-by-Section analysis, add the following to the end of the first paragraph: "It is expected that regulations limiting, assignments in. the United States and procedures for exceptions of the eight-year rule would be negotiated with the exclusive representative for each agency." Comment: We applaud Sec. 531(a) as a reaffirmation of the principle of world- wide assignment in the Service. However, it is essential that the regulations and procedures under which these aspects of service discipline are applied be co- determined by'the exclusive representative to ensure equitable application and prevent arbitrary, abuse. See. 531(b) (p. 41). Revise Section-by-Section Analysis by adding the follow- ing at the end of the second paragraph : "The implementation of this subsection implies that?a reasonable number of Foreign Service positions will be maintained in the United States in all categories so as to permit the assignment of those who desire assignment in the United States after extended duty abroad." Comment: We approve of paragraph (b). However, there are some specialties, e.g., secretaries and communicators, in which there are not enough positions in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Washington to meet this objective because not enough positions are classified Foreign Service. This revision 'envisions steps to ensure that enough slots are made available for all Foreign Service personnel categories to permit reasonable domestic rotations after extended duty abroad. CHAPTER 6-PROMOTION AND RETENTION Sec. 602 (a) (p. 43), Section-by-Section Analysis, add following as a new para- graph : It is contemplated that the exclusive representative will be able to nego- tiate the time-in-class (TIC) for new FS-1, as well as the number of years in the threshold window during which one may be considered for promotion. In AID'/ IDCA, where retirement for excessive TIC has not been used, the establishment of a threshold window would have to await the establishment of a TIC at that level-both on the basis of negotiation with the exclusive representative; Comment: Our approval of the senior threshold "window" and the extension of TIC to AID is conditioned by the requirement that the application of these authorities be negotiable as a safeguard for employees. See. 602 (b) (p. 43), substitute the following : "(b) Decisions by the Secretary on the numbers of those to be promoted into and retained in the Senior Foreign Service shall be based upon a systematic long-term projection of personnel flows and needs designed to provide- (1) a regular, predictable flow of recruitment at the junior levels of the Foreign Service ; '(2) effective career development patterns to meet the needs of the Service; and (3) regular, predictable flow of talent upward through the ranks and'into the Senior Foreign Service." Section-by-Section Analysis, revise as follows : First sentence, delete "in mak- ing" and insert in lieu thereof "to base," and insert "upon" after "SFS" and delete "to. take into account". Insert as new second sentence the following : "This subsection, calls for the establishment- of long-term promotion ranges in the rele- vant competition groupings, together with' the associated ranges of combined voluntary and involuntary attrition necessary to achieve overall balance in the flow pattern." Comment: These changes are-necessary to'lend greater specificity to the Con- gressionalrequirement that the personnel system of the Service be managed as an integrated whole in which the overall entry, departure and promotion rates are consciously kept in balance. Sec: 602'(b) (p. 43), . Section-by-Section Analysis, add following - as another paragraph.:, , It.is contemplated that these long term target promotion ranges in the relevant competition groupings would be subject to negotiations which' would: also identify the range' of permissible forced attrition necessary to achieve overall balance in the Row pattern: Anticipated failure to stay within the agreed` target promotion ranges would trigger renegotiation of either the long term promotion and/or attrition target ranges. Comment : The, fundamental long-term trade-offs between advancement and security must be negotiable if the exclusive representative is to properly safe- guard the 'interests of employees. By negotiating overall ranges with a long- term character management would be free to make the necessary. adjustments to fine tune the system from year to year, but employees would be empowered to negotiate if, exogenous factors force a fundamental shift in the balance between job security and promotion opportunities. Sec. 603 (p. 44) Section-by-Section Analysis, add following sentence at end of second, paragraph : "It is expressly understood that the composition of selection boards, and the precepts under which they function, should continue to be subject to negotiation and agreement with the exclusive representative." Sec. 612 (a) (p. 44). After "Dependability" insert "usefulness", and lines 2-7 delete everything after "Service." Comment : "Usefulness" is from the 1946 Act ; to us it carries an implication of assignability. However, we would eliminate all the examples of reports in the performance file in order to leave these for negotiation between management and the exclusive representative. Many of our Members are concerned that records of prospective assignments for SFS members might be subject to abuse. Sec. 641(a) (p. 47), Section-by-Section Analysis, add the following to the last sentence of the first paragraph : "and/or among classes, but all individuals in a Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 given occupation and within the same class, competing for the same'assignnaents and promotions will be covered in an identical fashion." Comment : This section is meant to. protect specialist categories, particularly communicators, to ensure that those competing for the same jobs:and assign- ments at a given level will be treated identically with regard to TIC regardless of the different rules which applied before to those formerly holding FSS versus FSR/U designations. Equitable application of this provision requires that it be negotiable between Management and the Exclusive Representative. Sec. 641(a), Section-by-Section Analysis, add the following to the second para- graph : "The establishment and adjustment of regulations specifying time-in-class (or combinations thereof) and the duration of limited' ex=tensions of career appoint- ments shall be negotiable with the exclusive employee representative to ensure that these authorities are exercised in a manner consistent with equity and stable career planning." Comment: Adjustment in time-in-class or the duration of limited extensions of career appointments are extremely blunt instruments for managing the com- position of the work force. These regulations must be negotiable to. maintain con- fidence in the Service that this authority will not be abused because of external political influences or internal cronyism. In AID, -different historical circum- stances require that TIC must be established very carefully and gradually as safeguarded by mandatory negotiations with the exclusive representative. Sec. 642 (p. 48), delete "relative" and substitute "failure to meet standards of" in heading of bill, section-by-section heading, and table of contents. Comment : We support the concept of selection out for substandard perform- ance, including its extension to what is now the Foreign Service Staff Corps, and to AID, where the authority has not been used recently. We oppose, however, a section title which. suggests that selection out could occur to'a career member of the Service who is performing adequately, albeit not as ,well as his/her peers and if retired, would not receive an immediate annuity. Either immediate annui- ties should be extended below age 50 or new FS class one, or the, legislation should not be written so`as to prejudice the negotiations on performance standards pre- cepts. On the other hand, we would have no problem with rettrement,for relative performance for personnel who are eligible for immediate annuities and whose retirement would increase promotion opportunities for outstanding mid-level and junior members. V Sec. 60 (a) (p. 48). Section-by-Section: Insert after first sentence 6f-second paragraph: "All individuals in a given occupation and within the :same class competing far, the, same assignments and promotions will be covered: in, an identical fashion. Comment : This provision is intended to protect specialist categories, particu- larly 'communicators, to ensure ~ that those competing for the same jobs .and assignments at a given level will be treated identically with, regard to standards of performance. Sec. 642 .(p..48), Section-by-Section `Analysis, .revise, last sentence of first paragraph as follows "However, section 2104 (e) of'this bill exempts those members currently on the rolls to whom section 633.(a).. (2) of,the 1946 Act does not now apply from application of this section for a period of five ten years or eligibility of the individual before that time for voluntary retirement with .immediate annuity." CHAPTER 7-FOREIGN SERVICE 'INSTITUTE, CAREER DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND ORIENTATION Sec. 701 (b), Section-by-Section, first line (p..53), after "that" insert "in addition to training for employees." Comment: Parallels text of Sec. 701 (b). Sec. 703, Section-by-Section, line 11 (p. 54), insert new sentence: "This pro- vision,. derived from sections 702 and 703 of the 1946 Act, is intended to en- courage a variety of activities to foster broadened emperiences for members of the Service, including activities involving ..:' Sec. 703 (b) (p. 55), delete "esoteric." Comment : The Service may require proficiency in languages which are not esoteric. Sec. 704 (a), lines 2 and 5, (p. 56), delete "orientation and language." Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 V Sec:..744 (a) ; line 2. Amend to read: ".:. . to emlloyees and members of families ... 'line 3. Amend to read: ".:. to employees and family members ... Comment::The Secretary should have the authority to provide grants to cover the actual' costs.. of training for employees and family. members pursuant to- section 7010).. : Sec. 704-(4)1; line 7, and Section-by-Section, delete references to $300 per- month and six months. Comment:: The Secretary should have the authority to-provide grants to cover the actual costs of training pursuant to Sec. 701 (b). V Sec. 704 (b) Substitute : "If a member of the service ora member of the family- of a member of the service..." Sec* ,705:(by (p. 57), delete "facilitate" and insert "assistance in facilitating- through-.a family liaison office," after "personnel", insert "including"; delete subparagraph (3) ; section-by-section, add: "Of course, the 'Family Liaison Office may be assigned additional functions by the Secretary. (The existhi.g- Family, Liaison Office currently provides a wide variety, of services relating to Foreign Service families.)" Comment: This recognizes the role which the Family Liaison Office can play in. facilitating the employment of Foreign Service spouses. CHAPTER S-FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM. Sec. 821. (c) (_$), (p. 71), revise to read : "If an, annuitant dies and is survived not by a spouse but a child or children. an annuity equal to the maximum survivor annuity for a surviving spouse shall` be paid to the.child or in equal parts to the children.?'. Comment: Considering the very unique problems of orphaned minor children, we believe the current schedule of annuities to be unrealistic. Making arrange- ments for the further support of such child or children can be very difficult be- cause foreign, service life weakens ties to the extended family and the only sur- viving relative may reside in a foreign country. We recommend that the annuity schedule for surviving orphan children be increased under the above formula. See. 836 (b) '(p. 80). Amend to read: "... shall determine that the needs of- the Service require any participant . " Comment: The justification for extending the period of employment of a career employee beyond age 60 should be tied to Service needs, which can be measured' and determined. V Sec,837.(p. 81). Section-by-Section Analysis, add: "This provision should be- used systematically as one of the attrition mechanisms." Comment: This section is an improvement over Sec. 519 in the 1946 Act in that it extends.. coverage to all career employees with. Presidential appointments and' not just chief of, mission appointments. Section 519 retirements have been used- sparingly. Sec. 872 (a) (p. 93), change to read: "not to exceed during any calendar year- the basic, salary the member would be entitled to receive under this Act if cur- rently employed in the Foreign Service class which the Secretary determines- most compatible to the class the member held on the date of his or her retirement from the Service." Comment : Considering inflation and the significant basic federal salary in- creases which have occurred, it is unrealistic and unfair .to use the employee's salary at time of retirement as a ceiling for what he can receive as annuity and' salary when re-employed. Rather, the ceiling should be no less than that salary which the employee would be receiving if he or she had continued his or her career- employment. CHAPTER 9-TRAVEL, LEAVE AND OTHER BENEFITS 'Sec. 901 (1) (p. 98) Section-by-Section Analysis, last line, change to read' "tion 911 (1), (2), and (6) of the 1946 Act." Comment.: Management officials have testified that 901(1) includes the author- ity of old 911 (6): . . Sec. 901 (2); and Section-by-Section (p. 98), change to read "authorized or- required home leave in the United States." Comment : Parallels Sec. 911. Sec. 901 (3) . (p. 98), delete all after "duty." Comment : The Secretary should have the authority to determine by regula- tion conditions.. under which travel costs of family, members may be paid in, connection with an employee's TDY. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 CHAPTER 10-LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS Se6 1601 (3Last sentence (p.,106), change "shall" to.'sh.ould Comment : Parallels CSRA See., 7101(b). Sec. 1002(5) (p. 108), ehange to read: "(5) `confidential employee' means an, individual who acts in-a. ,confidential capacity. with respect to an individual who formulates or effectuates pnanage- went'.policies in the field of labor-management relations." Section-by-Section, first paragraph, insert "certain" before '.',management"; delete parenthetical phrase. Comment: parallels CSRA, Sec. 7111(d) (13) as well as the definition used in E.O. 11636. Sec.1005. (a). (1). (p. 112) Delete "of type and classes" Comment:.parallels CSRA, Sec. 7106 (a), and is consistent with. Sec. 1005(b) of this bill.' Sec. 1011 (a), last sentence (p. 113), change to read ". .. on a nominee, each such agency and each exclusive representative whose agreement is required . . 11 Comment : To make clear that the exclusive representative for employees in each agency has the same right as the management of that agency to .,participate fully in this process, even though one labor organization may be exclusive rep- resentative of more than one bargaining unit. Sec. 1014 (c) (p. 118). Delete all after "otherwise." Section-by-Section. delete last two lines. Comment; Parallels OSRA, 7119(c) (5) (C). See. 1028(b) (1) (A) last three lines (p. 122), change to read "concerning aug grievance or any personnel policy or practice or other general, condition of employment." Change Section-by-Section to read "other employees." Comment: Parallels CSRA, Sec. 7114(a) (2). See. 1028(d) (2) (p. 1231, Change to read "... .,any condition.of employment ;" Comment: Parallels CSRA, Sec. 7114(b) (2). . Sec. 1011 (e) (p. 132). Comment: This subsection, paralleling Sec. 1(b) of E.O. 11636, has prevented and will effectively prevent any real or apparent conflict of: interest for any employee, if not a management official or confidential employee. Thus, addi- tional exclusions from. the bargaining unit are unnecessary. Sec. 1041.(f ), (p. 132) Delete "prohibited picketing" Comment : Parallels CSRA, ' Sec. ' 7120(f), , which reflects, a decision of the Conference on the CSRA (see p. 154 of Conference Report). Sec. 1051(c) (p. 133), Delete "under Section, 1021(b) (1) (g),7, and, insert "alleging that ten percent of the employees in an agency have membership in the organization". . . . . - 1 Comment: Parallels CSRA, Sec: 7115(c) (1). CHAPTER 11-GRIEVANCES ..:.',.... . Sec. 1101(a) (1) (p..135), insert "involuntarily before ',`separation" and "character of before "information." Comment: Parallels the existing grievance ,legislation; See- 692(1.) (?B) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 as amended. Sec. 1101:(a). (p. 135), Section-by-Section. Amend next' to- last:?line:,'to read . alleged wrongful or capricious denial of allowance . . " Comment: Consistent with current law, the provision should be clear in its coverage to include cases where an allowance or financial benefit has been denied arbitrarily or capriciously even: if permissible under the letter of the applicable :statute. ;. r.:. V Sec. 1103(b) (p 138) Substitute for first two sentences A'grievant who is :a member of the bargaining unit represented by an exclusive representative shall be represented at every stage of. the proceedings only if represented by that exclusive representative, or a representative approved by such exclusive repre- sentative,.. Such a' grievant has the right to present a grievance on his or her own behalf : however, the exclusive representative shall have all the rights` of a party grievance proceedings. to the V Sec. 1103(b) Section-by-Section.: Delete last sentence and Insert: A'member of the bargaining unit represented by an exclusive representative ma j/' bb repre- sea,ted only ?by that exclusive representative although the excl'usive'representa- tive can approve representation by an alternate representative. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 It is expected that. the exclusive representative ? would establish criteria for reviewing all, potential, grievances to see which have sufficient merit. to file. Where a grievant chooses to' 'present -a grievance "on his or her' own behalf, the exclusive representative would concomitantly"have all, the rights of a party to the grievance proceeding, so as to enable it to protect the collective interests of its-constituents. V Insert new- 1103(c) and renumber subsequent section accordingly: (c) No finding by the Foreign Service Grievance Board may operate to impair a duly concluded labor-management agreement. V Sec. 1103(c) -Section-by-Section: This'-provision is designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act to ensure the inviolability of any duly concluded agreement between the agency and the em- elusive, representative, and to reinforce the employees' right under section 100.E (b) (9)' W engage in collective bargaining with' respect to conditions of employ- ment. See. 1103(d)` (p. 138), Amend to read "The Foreign Service Grievance Board shall have authority to ensure that no record of-" Comment: The above wording repeats' that contained in present legislation. Because the present wording has presented no problems and there is prece- dent concerning its meaning and interpretation, AFSA recommends against any change. See. 1111(b) (p. 140), Amend to read " ` . each' such agency and exclusive representative shall select two nominees ..." Comment: The revised wording clarifies and-reinforces the concept of equality between : the 'agency and the-exclusive representative, for the `bargaining unit in that agency: V Sec. 1112 (p. 142) Amend subsec. (2) to read : "the grievant, the grievant's representatives, the exclusive employee representative, and the Department's representative are entitled to be present at the hearing." V See. -1112 Section-by-Section: Add : Where the grievant has chosen to represent "himself, or where the exclusive representative approves alternate representation, the -exclusive' representative? shall have the right to be present at the hearing Ito protect the collective interests of its constituents.' ' V Sec. 1141, ?(i.?148) Section-by-Section. Add: Since. under see. 1103(b); the exclusive representative would have all the rights of a party to the grievance proceeding, the exclusive representative would conse- quently 'have the right to appeal a?deci?sion of the Foreign Service Grievance Board impair a -duly' concluded labor-management agreement. CHAPTER 12-COMPATABILITY OF PERSONNEL SYSTEMS, Sec. 1203 (p. 150) Add: .. . in a manner that will assure maximum, uniformity of personnel man- agement, particularly in the Senior Foreign Service, among .. . Comment:,This fosters the concept of a Foreign Service of the kited States and of the flexibility which could result from It if uniformly administered by thewarl'ons participating agencies. ' : " , ` ? ' .' 'TITLE 1I=TRANSITION; AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS, REPEALS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS -41 CHAPTER 1--TEANSrON Sec. 2101(b) (p. 153) Change "availability" to "assignment". Comment.: This corrects what is apparently a typographical error. , See. 2101(c); (p. 154), Insert new subsection "(c)" to read : _ "(c) Any Foreign Service officer or candidate currently serving who at the time of original appoint- ment met the-new criteria for appointment at class 1, shall be immediately pro- moted.,to the.appropriate step of that rank if it has not already been attained." Comment-: This Is a necessary transitional authority to avoid disadvantaging an employee who is already in the Service in contrast to a new recruit. Sec. 2104(e) .(p. 160), change to read: "(e) Retirement under'Section 642 of the Foreign -Service Act of 1979 shall not be effected until ten, years after the effective date of this Act with respect to members of the Foreign Service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 275 Change Section-by-Section Analysis last sentence (p. 159) to read ".., . for ten years . See. 2104(0) (p:160) Add new. (3) : "(3) who are not eligible for immediate annuity upon retire- ment under Chapter 8 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979." Comment: We support the extension of retirement for substandard perform- ance throughout the Foreign Service. However, we have many members of the present Foreign Service Staff Corps who have served for many years under the assumption that they would be able to continue to serve until eligible for retire- ment with an immediate annuity, but who are not yet in FSSO Class I or age 50 with 20 years service. It would be harsh to apply selection out to them, par- ticularly to secretaries who find it very difficult to start a second career after age 40, and particularly in the context of relative performance which may be adequate although relatively less good than that of their peers. Our amendment would start the selection out process immediately after enactment, but would avoid for ten years thereafter actual retirements from the Service of those not eligible for an immediate annuity. This would apply to AID Foreign Service Corps members as well. Sec. 2105 (p. 160). Delete "under the direction of the President." Comment There should be no doubt'that the Secretary (and other foreign affairs agency heads) have the discretionary authority to prescribe implement- ing transitional regulations-and therefore, the obligation to negotiate these regulations with the exclusive employee representative. We would be particularly interested in negotiations on procedures for the determination of worldwide availability, pursuant to See. 2101 (a) (2), p. 173, lines 11-13, and Sec. 2102 (d), p. 175, lines 3-4; and the determination of needs of the Service, pursuant to Sec. 2101 (b) (1), p. 173, lines 19-21, and Sec. 2102 (d) (1), p. 175, lines 8-10. VSec. 2106 (p. 161). Add at end of section: Within twelve months of the effective date of this Act, the Director of the International Development Cooperation Administration shall promulgate regulations implementing the provisions of Section 802 of this Act to establish from the ranks of tenured career officers a commissioned Foreign Service Officer Corps for the Agency for International Development. Comment: All foreign affairs agencies should utilize the authorities of this Act, without artificial labels which imply that officers of some agencies are more equal than others. See our line-by-line for Sec. 202 (a). CHAPTER 2-AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS Sec. 2201 (a) (p. 164). Insert a new subsection "(4)" and renumber succeed- ing subsections: "(l.) Sec. .27-Exemption from Foreign Customs Duties and Local Duties and Local. Taxes." The Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps, including the nego- tiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements, necessary to carry out fulfil/ the provisions of the Diplomatic and Consular Conventions which extend to non- commissioned diplomatic and consular personnel assigned abroad protection from host government customs duties and local taxes. Pending completion of such agreements, the Secretary is authorized to reimburse members of the Service for those customs duties and local taxes which the member has paid despite,the protection accorded by the appropriate conventions." Comment: The Vienna Conventions and others extend to noncommissioned diplomatic and consular personnel assigned abroad certain protections from host government customs duties and local taxes. Despite these assurances many host governments deny such exemptions at considerable extra expense to members of the Service. Departmental efforts to persuade host government com- pliance with the Conventions have always been time-consuming and all too often unsuccessful,. The purpose of this new section is to reinforce the Department's determination to force other governmental compliance and to authorize reim- bursement of, disadvantaged employees, and to place the Department's obliga- tion in this regard on an equal basis with its obligation to bargain for employ- ment for family members. If other countries are not willing to accord the inter- nationally, recognized privileges, immunities, and employment opportunities, the Secretary should withdraw any such benefits from the country in question. V See. 2202(b) (p. 173) Add a new "(1)" and renumber subsequent subsections. (1) Section 625 (b) Is amended by adding at the end of this section : No persmi- nel serving under this appointment authority may be assigned to dny position des- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 innated? as'a foreign service position pursuant to Section 101 of'the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978. Comment : The Agency for International Development has taken ? the position that' the excepted service appointed authority of the Foreign Assistance -Act of 1961, as amended, supersedes section 401 of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978, the so-called Obey Amendment, 22 U.S.C. sec. 2385a. This' position is directly contrary to subsection (c) of that section, which provides: (c) Regulations which take effect pursuant to this section shall have the force and effect of law and shall apply with respect to the personnel of the agency primarily responsible for administering sub-chapter I of this chapter, notwith- standing and [sic] inconsistent provision of law unless that provision of law specifically states that it supersedes regulations issued under this section. The Agency's construction would allow it to circumvent the Obey Amendment by appointing up to 110 non-career and non-Foreign Service employees to posi- tions designated as Foreign Service positions. This amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act would further the intent of the Obey Amendment and would serve to protect the integrity of the Foreign Service. Sec. 2202(b) (2) (p. 174). Insert after "is amended" by striking out the first sentence and replacing it with : "The chief and his or her deputy of each special mission or staff carrying out the purposes of Part I shall be appointed by the President from the Senior Foreign Service, and may, notwithstanding the provi- sions of any other law, be reassigned by the President athis discretion . Comment : The proposed Foreign Service Act provides that five percent of the Senior Foreign Service may be non-career appointees. (sec. 321). To continue -to allow for non=career 631(b) appointments is therefore unnecessary. Further- more, it is inimical to the personnel system, opening it up to abuse. Allowing too many non-career employees to enter into the Agencies' senior ranks would impair AID professionalism and its employees' opportunities for promotion. This amendment would also further the objectives of the proposed Foreign Service Act to promote maximum compatibility among the Agencies authorized to utilize the Foreign Service personnel system. (See sections 101(b)- (7) (Senior I oreign Service) and 101(b) (9) ). - I , Sec. 2206 (p. 77, after line 8). Insert new Section: Sec. 2206 Post Differential. 5 U.S.C. 5925 is amended as follows: All members of the Service shall receive the full amount of post differential to which they are entitled, provided that the amount of basic salary, post differential, and, if applicable, senior differential, shall not exceed in any fiscal year the salary provided by law for Level I of the )i'cderal Executive Salary Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312). Comment:' 5 U.S.C. 5925 establishes a taxable post differential often called a "hardship allowance", of 10, 15, 20, or 25 percent of the basic salary as-a.recruit- ment and retention incentive to staff assigned to certain designated posts. A post differential is'established for when, and only when, the location of the post involves extraordinarily difficult living conditions, excessive physical hardship, including physical danger, or notably unhealthful conditions. Living costs are not taken into account. Heretofore, pursuant to regulations, post differential has not been paid to chiefs of mission and has been paid to subordinate personnel only in amounts so that the employee's salary plus post differential will not exceed $100 less than the salary of the chief of mission. These restrictions were appar- ently adopted in the belief that chiefs of mission receive sufficient other forms of compensation and that their authority would be threatened if their salary were less than the salary plus post differential paid to subordinate employees. AFSA believes these regulatory restrictions are unfair and anachronistic. The -full amount of allowed post differential should be paid to all governmental employees assigned to the post. This is in line with the recommendations of the 1977 report of the Inter-Agency Committee on Overseas Allowances and Benefits for U.S. Employees. Using the base salary of the chief of mission as a ceiling on the amount of post differential that can be paid to a subordinate employee creates undesirable anomalies. A senior, official, including a present-day FSO-3, could receive more in the form of.salary plus allowances if assigned to a relatively subordinate position at a "differential post" Class I mission than when assigned to a more challenging position, such as deputy chief of mission, at a Class III "differential post" mission. The outstanding officer thus has an incentive to accept the less challenging assignment. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Chiefs of mission are subject to the same physical hardships and unhealthful conditions as all other members of the mission.. In many cases they, are the most likely person at the post to be selected as the target for a terrorist attack or other acts of violence. We believe that senior management officials of the Department are sympathetic to this proposal. See also Sec. 441 above. CHAPTER 8-REPEALS Sec. 2301 (3) (p. 178, line 24). After "section" insert "412 and". Comment : This section is the amendment which abolished premium pay for Foreign Service officers. Since it took effect in October 1978, it has caused great bitterness among FSO's, including those who never personally apply for overtime. The provision for special allowances (repeated as Sec. 462 of the draft bill), has so far only benefited some 77 FSO's who regularly work more than 55 hours a week, and they are making much less than they would have. This provision enables the Department, by overworking its FSO's, to cut its costs and avoid requesting adequate staffing. While we understand that the author of this amendment was aiming at what he regarded as the unprofessional practice of FSO's seeking overtime pay, the provision bans all forms of premium pay for FSO's, including extra pay for night, Sunday, and holiday work which may be imposed on the office or activity in which the FSO serves with other Foreign Service or non-Foreign Service personnel who are eligible for premium pay. In principle, FSO's are not even allowed to take compensatory time off or to participate in flexitime which the Office of Personnel Management is now urging. We strongly urge the repeal of this provision. See also Sec. 462 above. CHAPTER 4-SEVERABILITY, SAVING PROVISION, REPORTS AND EFFECTIVE DATE Sec. 2402 (p. 203). After line 9 insert: "(including recognition of any orga- nization of Foreign Service Officers and employees in the Agency for Interna- tional Development as the exclusive representative of employees in the Inter- national Development Cooperation Agency)." Comment: IDCA is being touted as not just a "successor agency" to AID, within the meaning of E.O. 11636, but a superagency of which AID is only one element. We want to make sure that the status of the current exclusive repre- sentative of AID Foreign Service people, and thus its ability to protect the interests of the AID Foreign Service in the coming transition, is not adversely affected either by the IDCA reorganization plan or this bill. See. 2404 (p. 181). Change "January" to "October" add "Provided, that ac- tions may be taken after that date on the basis of any the current Foreign Service evaluation cycle as if this Act had been in effect at the beginning of that cycle." Section-by-Section, change "January" to "October" and add: "permits im- plementation to be retroactive to the beginning of any current personnel evalua- tion cycle." Comment : The January 1980 date is not realistic. October would correspond more closely to legislative reality, including the budget cycle The additional words would take account of the various promotion cycles. The CHAIRMAN. We now move on to Mr. Kenneth Blaylock, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. STATEMENT OF KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, WASH- INGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN KOCZAK, CHARLES .MEDD, AND MARY JACKSTEIT Mr. BIAYLocK. I am not in the Foreign Service. I am the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. I appreciate the opportunity to express our views on this The CHAIRMAN. Let me just for my edification ask what is your own personal job. Are you in the Foreign Service? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Mr. 'BLAYLOCK I I am not in the Foreign Service. I am`the national president:ofthe American Federation of Government: Employees. I have with me, Mr. Stephen Koczak, who is my special assistant, special- izing in Foreign Service affairs and a 15-year employee of the Foreign Service. I have also with me this morning' Mary Jacksteit 'our legisla- tive counsel who also has experience in the Foreign Service, and Charles Medd, who is presently with the Voice of America and has long experience The CHAIRMAN. You have a rather long statement so A Mr. BLAYLOCK. I have a summary statement. I would request that the full statement be entered after my oral statement. These are a couple of comments I would like to make, Mr. Chair- man.. As you know, my organization ' played a key role and worked very intimately with the administration and with the Congress as we developed Civil Service reform. And I think there seems -to be an assumption, really I guess proposed 'by the administration as they' proposed this legislation, that it is very much in line with Civil.Serv- ice reform, however, there are some major differences` in the Civil Service Reform Act and some of the proposals in this particular piece of legislation. . We supported the Reform Act itself and I had no serious opposition to the Senior Executive Service conditioned on certain protections.' For instance in the Civil Service Reform Act the members of the Senior Executive Service still have the protections of the title I of that act; which are the merit principles which are policed and pro- tected by the Merit System Protection Board. This legislation pro- posing the Senior Foreign Service does not provide that kind of independent statutory statutory protection. We also have built into the Senior Executive Service in the Civil Service Reform Act a parachute clause that allows career employees who go into the Senior Executive Service from the career. service to parachute back into the career service provided they do not make it in the Senior Executive Service system, The design there was to avoid loss of competent, dedicated employees who. may not make it in the Senior Foreign Service. I would like to basically go over the summary of our prepared state- iiient, which I already stated is comprehensive and does deal specifi- cally with each element of the legislation. When I discussed some 6 months ago the administration's proposed reform, S. 1450, with members of our AFGE locals 1534 and 1812, the consensus we reached was that our foreign service has been seri- ously .neglected and that apparently not even the Secretary of. State appreciated fully the grave dangers this neglect entailed for our na- tional security. We felt that the progressive depreciation:of the foreign affairs agencies, the Department of State, the Agency for Interna- tional Development, and the International Communication Agency, had to be reversed and the needs of the United States and. of the per- sonnel in these three agencies had to be perceived in the larger context in which they have to discharge their missions. Our estimate has been unhappily confirmed by the events which have transpired since then. Today, nearly 50, members of the Foreign Serv- ice are hostages while our Nation prays and demonstrates for their safety.'Some' are military personnel; most are civilians' some have Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 been in Iran working in such offices as Bi-National Centers. dome have performed diplomatic functions, others consular tasks;! still others administrative and clerical duties. All now share a common fate, irre- spective of grade or rank-the fate of hostages, captives despite every pledge of security and immunity with which they had gone forth, not only by the U.S. Government as their employer, but also by the U.N. and by the World Court on the basis of the Geneva Convention of 1961 defining diplomatic and consular immunity and privilege. How are we to succor, let alone compensate, these Foreign Service personnel? Can we honestly say that the present law, or the proposed administration's Foreign Service reform legislation, reflects the con- ditions of their employment and the commitment of loyalty and sacri- fice which they have given? My comments anc' proposals for solving these problems take full cognizance of the stark realities of the foreseeable future.' First, I have sought to identify the degree to which the Foreign Service is unique, that is incomparable with other civil service sys- tems. In that light, I have sought a method to compensate this unique- ness by a special tax exempt allowance and by providing retirement at rates at least equal to such other hazardous professions as the FBI and firefighters. Second, we have sought to define those areas when the Foreign Service is comparable to the Civil Service. In those areas, such as base pay, premium pay, labor management relations, grievance procedures, we have sought to assure that Foreign Service personnel do not receive less than their Civil Service counterparts. Third, we have drawn attention to injustices, some of recent origin, others the residues of the past. These ,affect several 'hundred em- ployees at the Agency for International Development and nearly 50 employees at the Voice'of America who were formerly with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. These are the broad outlines of my concerns. I shall now summarize my proposals specifically to accommodate the time limitations affect- ing us this morning, with the understanding my entire statement will be entered into the record of these. hearings. The CHAt 'MAN. Without objection. Mr. BLAYLoCK. It has been our position since this legislation began to take form, that the measure fails to respond to the needs for ade- quate compensation for Foreign Service employees, for a personnel structure that will enhance the ability of Foreign Service` employees to carry out 'their vital work, and for the need to preserve to. each foreign affairs agency the ability to carry out the mission assigned to it. We have also insisted that 'in every case of rectification of past errors in management of the foreign affairs agencies, there must be due respect'for the rights of the employees to be.affected. We do not believe that the personnel system envisaged -by the admin- istration bill is inadequate to the times, will attract new talent to the Foreign Service, or will reward achievement or: compensate employees and their.families for the dangers and traumas which the new international climate contains. First, the bill seeks to bring an end to the era of attempted unified personnel systems in the foreign affairs agencies. As our 'statement describes in detail, AFGE never advocated theunified :system- policy Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 and fought it in every way possible. We succeed in reaching an agree- ment with the International Communication Agency several years a go which in effect ended the program in that Agency, but provided that those in the Foreign Service as- foreign affairs specialists would be permitted to retain the status which the Agency assigned to them under these previous personnel policies, if they so desired. The program undertaken by AFGE and ICA in this regard is an earnest one and represents the best judgment of both employees and their representatives, and the agency, as to the fairest and wisest way to end an unfortunate personnel experiment. We oppose the adminis- tration provision to cancel this agreement and legislate a resolution to this problem, thereby ignoring the legitimate rights of employees and their representative, and placing into jeopardy their compensa- tion and benefits. Second, we reject the efforts in this legislation to compromise the independence of the USICA and AID by altering their fundamental relationship with the Department of State by conferring on the De- partment the authority to enforce "maximum conformity" in matters of personnel policy. We want to strenuously repeat our support for the separate career Foreign Service Information Officer Corps and en- dorse the comments made by Director John Reinhardt to this commit- tee last'summer on this subject.. We oppose any first step in eliminating the separate FSIO corps such as transforming the Senior Foreign Service, proposed in the bill, into a unified, interagency management corps. Third, we urge the committee to examine the proposals we have made for a 15-percent allowance for Foreign Service employees who serve 'abroad, and for improved retirement benefits. Our evaluation of the: exercise going on within the executive branch at this time, to establish a new pay scale for the Foreign Service, is that it will fail miserably to bring real equity to the Foreign Service compensation system, and will completely fail in its attempt to reward Foreign Service employees for the unique burdens they bear from a career served :abroad. The allowance approach is more equitable and more effective. Fourth, we find unacceptable the labor-management provisions of the bill-which would establish a separate and inferior labor-manage- ment system for the Foreign Service. We firmly believe that the rights and interests of Foreign Service employees can only be served by giv- ing them access to the new labor relations structure created by Con- gress last year. The unique characteristics of the Foreign Service can be fully accommodated within that structure by special provisions with regard to membership and scope of bargaining units. We also believe it essential that the bill and legislative history clearly establish the right of the emplee- representatives to negotiate with the foreign affairs agencies on' the implementation of the provisions of this bill which accord extraordinary powers to-mail- agement. in the areas of career tenure, time in class, and performance pay. It' will be the employee representatives alone who will be able to insure that this grant of authority is not misused and abused. Finally, expanded management authorities referred to above raise the specter of politicization of the Foreign 'Service-they will in- crease dramatically the ability of the agencies to enforce conformity Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 among a group of employees within which creative intelligence and courageous thinking is essential. We are not convinced that this di- rection represents "reform," let alone progress. In our statement we have made a number of recommendations for modification of these proposals. I thank you again for the opportunity to appear here this morning. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. [Mr. Blaylock's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH T. BLAYLOCE Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this Senate Subcommittee, I ap- pear before you fully cognizant of the somber circumstances which surround the lives and the liberties of foreign service personnel today. The events at the American 'Embassy in Tehran are but the latest, potentially the most tragic confrontation in the recent annals of our. foreign service. Yet. the fact is that the fabric of diplomatic and consular immunity has been torn often before, if not so flagrantly. The assassinations, undue verbal: harrassment and attacks on sovereign soil which the United States foreign service has experienced re- cently and the murders and. kidnappings to which the diplomatic and consular representatives of other states are being subjected are only precursors, in our -view, of even more grave events. When I discussed some six months ago the Administration's proposed reform, S. 1450, with members of our AFGE Locals 1534 and 1S12, the consensus we reached was that our foreign service has been seriously neglected and that ap- parently.noteven 'the Secretary of State appreciated fully the grave dangers this neglect, entailed for our national security. We felt that,the progressive depreciation of the foreign affairs agencies, the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and 'the International Communication Agency, had to be reversed and the needs of the United States and of the personnel in these three agencies had to be perceived in the larger context in which they have to discharge their missions. Our estimate has been unhappily confirmed by the' events which have trans- pired since theu.? Today, nearly. 50 members of the foreign service are hostages while our nation, prays and demonstrates for their safety. Some are military personnel; most are civilians; some have been in Iran working in such offices as Bi-National _Centers. Some have performed diplomatic functions, others con- sular tasks, still others administrative and clerical duties. All' now share a common fate, irrespective of grade or 'rank-the fate of hostages, captives despite every pledge of the security, and 'immunity with which they had gone forth,, not. only by the U. S. Government as their empl'oyer,,but.also by the U.N. and by the World Court on the basis of the Geneva Convention of 1961 defining diplomatic and consular immunity and privilege. How are we to succor, let alone compensate, these foreign service per- sonnel? Can we honestly say that the present law, or the proposed administra- tion foreign -service reform legislation, reflects the conditions of their employ- ment and the commitment of loyalty and sacrifice which they have given? I do not believe,that they do and our members and their families, whether in the foreign service or the civil service, do not believe that the employees of the foreign affairs agencies have been properly honored and properly compensated. I am sure that you know that in saying these words I speak with knowledge and deliberation because our union represents approximately 25,000 Federal employees whose missions are involved with U.S. foreign policy or U.S. physical presence overseas. We are the exclusive representative of all employees, civil service and foreign service, in the International Communication Agency. We represent all the civil service employees in the Agency for International De- velopment and some civil service employees in the Department of State. We have a separate Council of Foreign Affairs Employees to coordinate our rep- resentation at these so-called Foreign Affairs agencies. In addition, we have an entire District, the Fifteenth, within whose jurisdiction are those em- ployees overseas of all the U.S. Federal Departments, including employees in the Panama Canal area, Germany, Italy, and other foreign countries for whom we have won exclusive representation. Thus, our membership is fully cognizant of the importance and wide ramification of foreign affairs in our national life. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 282 I. have-reviewed= our involvement in foreign affairs. so .extensively. primarily because I.sh'all be commenting on the proposed draft for the Foreign Service Act of 1979 from that very broad perspective. See..froth this perspective'' the Administration's proposals are disappointing, and reactionary. They' incorporate. time-worn procedures -for promoting, select- ing and managing employees with concepts to ill-advised and destructive that we do. not wonder that,the legislation introduced with such haste has been pursued only tfully. For our part, we'have consistently' argued, that the Ad- ministration's' bill is inadequate to the times, unable to attract new talent, reward achievement, and compensate empolyees and their families for the dangers and traumas which the new international climate contains. I earnestly beseech you, with the wisdom you have available and the lessons which the last half year have brought to world-wide attention to use this oppor- tunity-"to' draft Foreign Service legislation fitted to our times. The Foreign Service-Act has not been re-written since 1946 and whatever is put in law now is likely to' be with us another decade. We do not believe that the bill submitted by the Department is sufficient even for the immediate future, based on recent developments in international affairs. THE DECLINE OF THE "FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES" One;fact.which reveals the disintegration of our foreign policy structures is the ratio of career foreign service personnel at our missions abroad. Generally speaking, the Department of State asserts that only 1, in 4 persons. are subject to the jurisdiction of its own foreign service; adding ICA and AID, the ratio is no more than 1 in 3. This issue is not in any way addressed by the bill. Some of this problem, but increasingly of less importance at this juncture, is the role of the Central Intelligence Agency both in Washington, D.C. and in the diplomatic and consular missions abroad. Of far greater threat are the pres- ent ambitions of such other Federal agencies as the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, which. wish to operate abroad without direct personnel involvement or cooperation of members of the traditional-foreign serv- ice of the, United States. These ambitions have been gratified recently by the Administration under Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1979, transferring ap- proximately..100 positions from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce.. With this extraordinary fragmentation of authority in Washington and in the missions abroad, the energies of our Ambassadors have been dissipated so deeply that it is hardly surprising that they have not been able to respond in a timely manner to anticipate such crises as the Iranian debacle, the disasters we have suffered in Angola, Ethiopia, Somalia, and the current civil war in Afghanistan. Unless this dreadful dissipation of resource is stopped, they will not be able to respond in a timely fashion to the brewing crises in, among others, Morocco, Yugoslavia, Albania, South Africa, the Middle East, Central America, Cambodia, and Thailand, and the overwhelming, challenges to world order arising from the extraordinary dislocations of trade and commerce resulting from the civil and international wars all over the world which now are a daily occurrence. I submit to you that this is the prospect which you should bear in mind when drafting new legislation for the foreign service. The Department bill is lengthy and many of its provisions deserve specific comment. In the interest of time, we will focus our testimony on major areas that concern us. As attachments to our testimony are our sectional commentary as Annex I and material dealing with other major areas of concern which we would like to bring to your attention. It is evident that the foreign service should be placed under the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Unfortunately the labor- management title in the proposed bill does not grant full collective bargaining to members of the Foreign Service. We believe in universality of protection for all employees. As we hope you will perceive from our report on the origin of the Foreign Affairs Specialist program, the only assurance that such bizarre undertakings are prevented is to have labor-management relations governed by the same principles as those which apply everywhere else where there are American employees of the Federal government.. , ' Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 .283 As seen .with the implementing legislation for the. Panama. Canal Treaties, where coverage of Title VII was extended to employees of the PanamaCanal Commission 'employees who are not American citizens, it' is feasible to extend coverage.to.,those.categories.previously not incorporated. We.favor the, incorporation of foreign service personnel under the very fine provisions 'of Title VII by an amendment to that act deleting the following langilage.under exclusions: . "(iv) an .Officer or employee in the Foreign Service' of the United States employed in the Department of State, the Agency for International Development or the International Communication Agency." We believe this would be the most judicious and appropriate manner to pro- ceed..We. oppose the provisions of the Administration proposal for labor- management relations because it is redundant and would deprive foreign service personnel of the, protections and the procedures established by the Federal Labor Relations'Authority, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel. You will hear,' with justification, of two problems which concern members of our union and of the American Foreign Service Association with such a simple action. One, concerns the issue of "world-wide" representation ; the other con- cerns so-called* ."supervisors" being in the unit. Both problems arise from the ambiguities in the "rank-in-person" and "world wide availability" requirements of foreign service personnel. Consequently, these need to. be perceived in their fundamental relationship to the subject of appro- priate unit and supervisor. Under the. "rank-in-person" system an individual is not tied to any position in the foreign, service, but is reassigned with regularity. Even 'at the highest rank, a position, does not involve per se any supervisory function, since even the highest ranking officer cannot rank anybody in relation to any other officer. Only the selection panels can do that. Nor is there an exercise of any other of the managerial functions in hiring, assigning, and dismissing foreign service per- sonnel. These are all handled by centralized or collegial bodies. The problems of management, and the abuses of management, consequently reside in the anonymities of centralized administration and collegial bodies. These are the. real managers of the foreign service. It is against their anonymous action. that even the most senior foreign service officers and personnel .need the protections of the world wide unit in which all foreign service personnel are members. The Congress no doubt has in mind the protection of the clerical and technical and professional personnel from the abuse of power by senior career personnel. The question can be asked : How can a secretary or typist speak up in a meeting of the union representing foreign service personnel if the supervisor or manager can sit. by right in the same meeting? Does this not reduce labor-management relations to management manipulation? We have not found this to. be. the case. Common interests, particularly in working conditions overseas, create a col- legiality among Foreign Service employees. Conflicts can be resolved by resort to the Grievance Board. We recognize and concede there are problems. It is precisely for this reason that we wish to have the entire foreign service placed under the jurisdiction of Subpart F,-Labor-Management and Employee Relations of Title V of the U.S. Code, to assure. that the fullest measure of supervision over the activities of both management and labor in the foreign service takes place by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. We can think of no better way to assure that abuses are avoided and that collective bargaining rights are at least equivalent, and preferably identical, with those of other employees of the Federal government, who are not in the Foreign Service. Having said this, we believe that it is necessary to permit the retention of the present world-wide units and the present membership in the units and leave all other matters to the jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations Authortty. For the reasons we have given and the weaknesses which we perceive, we oppose totally the enactment of legislation such as that proposed by the Administration as Chapter 10.of its draft bill, entitled Labor-Management Relations. Such a separate Foreign Service Labor Relations system would be both administratively redundant and, we fear, not serve the best interests of either management or labor. THE FOREIGN SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD The push 'for ? a grievance procedure for Foreign Service employees began in the early 1970's when the absence of due process in the system was fast becoming Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 a public scandal. Senator Bayh first introduced a bill in 1971 establishing an independent grievance board. The State Department resisted and opposed this measure, successfully arguing to Congress that a procedure should be negotiated under the new Executive Order 11636, providing for labor-management relations in the Foreign Service. However, the Department failed to engage in meaningful negotiations with the employee representative-instead it proceeded to establish its own "interim" procedure which was seriously flawed. Agitation for an effec- tive grievance procedure grew, spurred by the tragic suicide of Charles William Thomas, a Foreign Service officer selected-out without due process, and the formation of the Thomas Legal Defense Fund which began litigation that re- sulted in the court decision in 1973 holding the selection-out procedures uncon- stitutional. AFGE and AFSA continued to press for a bill in Congress and Senator Bayh persistently introduced his bill in each session of Congress. Finally, the pressure became irresistable when all public members of the interim board resigned in 1974 after AID refused to abide by a Board decision. In 1975 Congress enacted the grievance legislation that now exists. The text is the product of the collective efforts of the employee representatives, Congressional staffs and foreign affairs agencies. The procedure has wide acceptability among ? members of the Service. The Foreign Service Grievance Board consists of pres- tigious arbitrators from the labor field and retired Foreign Service officers-all of whom are subject to selection and renewal by unanimous agreement of the parties using the Boa.rd-AFGE, AFSA, AID, USICA, and the State Department. Its operating regulations were negotiated with the unions, and conferral on issues relating.to the operation of the Board occurs on a regular basis. We have been generally satisfied with our experience-grievants have a full and fair opportunity to be heard, the union has been able to establish a good working relationship with Board members and staff, transcripts are available on a timely basis without cost, and decisions are published regularly. We welcome the addi- tion made in section 1024 to the. Board's jurisdiction of union grievances con- cerning violations of negotiated agreements-such a mechanism has been lacking in our labor-management system. On the other hand, we do not favor the State- originated proposal to make the union the exclusive representative for grievants within the bargaining unit. The Foreign Service Grievance Board is a statutory Appeal body set up by Congress for all members of the Service. Its jurisdiction covers many matters which a Civil Service employee would have the right to appeal through statutory procedures. This proposal would result in bargaining unit members having fewer rights than non-unit members who would have access .to the, Board with any representative of their choosing. The State Department proposal is evidently aimed. at over-taxing the resources of the unions and at limiting the number of grievances. We ask that Congress reject this effort. After serious consideration of this issue, we firmly believe that freedom of choice with regard to representation is most. compatible with the nature of the Foreign Service Grievance Board. It is therefore our request that the present language of subsection (b) of section 11.03 be deleted and replaced with the following: "The, grievant, has the right to a representative of his or her own choosing at every stage of the proceedings. The grievant and his/her representative (s) who are under the control, supervision or responsibility of the foreign affairs agencies shall be granted reasonable periods of administrative leave to prepare, be present and to present the grievance. Where the grievant is not represented by the ex- clusive bargaining representative for Foreign Service employees of the agency, .the exclusive representative shall have the right to be present during the griev- ance proceedings." Having expressed our endorsement of the existing procedure we would like to point to one area where the procedure could be significantly strengthened and made comparable to the binding arbitration that is generally used by unions and management. The procedure currently provides that with respect to certain matters, particularly assignment, promotion and discipline, the Board may only recommend a remedy to the agency head who may consider whether to follow the recommendation based upon "the needs of the Service." We have found this provision troubling and not infrequently resorted to; refusal of the agency to follow a recommendation leaves the grievant with only the choice of going to court, a choice that may not be realistic in terms of cost and the issues at stake. We therefore would propose the following amendment to chapter 11, section 1113: delete subsection (d) and add to subsection (b) a new paragraph (5) stating, "to promote an employee who is found to have previously failed to re- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 ceive proper consideration. Promotion may be retroactive where the Board finds that, but for the failure to be considered, the grievant would have been promoted." This feature of the proposed legislation is clearly patterned after Title IV of the Civil Service Reform Act establishing the Senior Executive Service. The op- portunity to create this executive corps was obviously a major incentive for de- veloping the bill. But there are significant areas where the SFS proposal departs from the SES model, and in our view these departures are to the detriment of the Foreign Service. Passage of the SFS provisions as now written would, in ,our view, have unfortunate consequences for not only the Service, but also for the conduct of the nation's foreign policy. Among USICA Foreign Service of- ficers there is overwhelming concern with the possibility that the SIPS as now designed will permit wholesale politicization of the Foreign Service and dis- courage discussion, dissent and professional development. This concern should not be difficult to understand. The combination of variable time-in-class and the so-called limited extension could be used to eliminate an entire class of officers not satisfying a Director's political bent, within a period as short as two or three years, by establishing time-in-class at one or two years and permitting no, or few, limited' extensions. While no one accuses the drafters of the bill with such in- tentions, there have been in the past, and there will be again, administrators who are capable of such action. Even absent the most extreme situation, the lack of certainty about one's status is going to foster caution, not courage. We are not opposed to making advancement and retention more directly dependent on performance. But the proposed SFS goes far beyond what is either necessary or adviseable. Let me make specific reference to those aspects of the SFS' which are without parallel in the SES and which we find objectionable. (1) The absence of a "parachute clause" for those removed from the Senior Foreign Service after expiration of time-in-class or non-renewal of a limited extension. The SES system provides that a member who is removed for reasons of performance (not misconduct or malfeasance) is entitled to placement in a non-SES position at the GS-15 level or above. ,This safeguard is a natural com- panion to the stringent provisions regarding retention and removal. In our view no less should be provided in the SFS. As. in the Civil Service, an employee in the Foreign Service may be fully capable of work at the FS-1 yet be deemed unsuitable for the SFS, possibly for reasons not in the least reflecting on the employee's abilities. As the bill is now written, an officer who is particularly able could reach, enter and be dropped from the SFS before the age of fifty while still retaining skills and knowledge important to the agency. The dis- incentive for achievement for the employee is as obvious as the disadvantage to the 'agency. We therefore propose that section 641 be amended to allow ,officers dropped from the SFS by expiration of time-in-class or non-renewal of .limited extension to retreat to the FS-1 level for the time remaining, if any, in the time-in-class period for class 1 (counting time previously served in class 1 and in the SFS). This could be achieved by adding a new subsection (c) to sec- tion 641 as follows : (c) Members of the Senior Foreign Service who are not granted a limited extension. or whose limited extension is not renewed shall be entitled to return to the FS-1 level and assigned to a non-SFS position for the period, if any, re- maining to be served in class 1 under applicable time-in-class rules for class 1. In determining the time remaining, periods previously served in class 1 and pe- riods served in the Senior Foreign Service shall be subtracted from the time in class period. (2) The "limited extension." This concept has no equivalent in the SES. It is a mechanism which will give enormous power to the agency head in retention decisions for those in the SFS and discretion to exercise that power without regard to performance factors. It is true, that decisions granting and renewing extensions will be made upon selection board recommendations, but the agency head will determine the number of extensions to be given and could allow none or very few. In combination with the authority to set and change time-in-class limits it will therefore be possible for the agency head to keep SFS members in a constant state of uncertainty about their future. At that point, dissent and creativity will be a luxury few will be able to afford. For a profession in which performance is not easily quantified, and where personal integrity and courage 50-230-80-19 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 are vital to the national interest, we think such measures are particularly ill- advised. It is our view that the provision in section 641 for "limited extensions" be deleted, that a minimum time-in-class period. be established for the SFS. (3) Section 602(b). The Department indicates in its sectional analysis that the objective of the SFS is to create a corps with rigorous entry, promotion and retention standards based on performance, but provides in this section that consideration should be given to the need for attrition. The necessity and pur- pose of this provision are not immediately clear, but the provision appears to conflict with the merit principles incorporated into the bill. Under merit prin- ciples, employees are to be retained on the basis of the adequacy of their per- formance. When agency managements determine the number of promotion oppor- tunities and selections into the SFS, they will surely consider this factor with- out a legislative mandate to do so. In our view, this section should be deleted. With the modifications we suggest the Senior Foreign Service would still give the agencies the flexibility desired but without the' sacrifice of legitimate inter- ests of both employees and the public. The stringent measures sought in the bill have not been justified to our satisfaction. For USICA, the Director himself made the case, in a March 26 letter to Mr. Read in which he reported : "Attrition and shorter promotion lists at USICA in the last two years have brought us a long way toward removing the surplus of senior officers. . . To- day, the number of officers at the class 1-3 levels and the number of jobs classi- fied at those ranks are at parity and the historic imbalance has been resolved. I'm convinced, therefore, that current legislative authority and internal admin- istrative practices are sufficient to deal with any potential future problems of senior officer impactment." Without modification, the SFS proposal will result in damage to the integrity of the Foreign Service and worsen rather than improve the personnel system. One of the most critical problems, associated with proper classification, in the area of personnel practices is appropriate pay. The Administration draft is silent on its specific character and we consider this one of the many serious weak- nesses in the bill. Our union endorses fully the principle that Foreign Service personnel be assured of proper classification, equivalent to those provided civil service em- ployees. We feel that, just as civil service employees now enjoy overtime pay, foreign service employees should be entitled to the same provisions. Conse- quently, we request that you include in your legislation the provision that both base and'premium pay for foreign service personnel shall be determined in the same manner as pay for civil service employees by proper "linkage" established by the Federal Pay Agent and Federal Employees Pay Council. The simplest way to achieve this would be to restate that the provisions of Title V, U.S. Code, which incorporates the authority of the Pay Agent and Pay Council, apply to the foreign service. However, even if this were done, foreign service employees would not have pay comparability because civil service employees are not subject to world wide service, to the attendant disruptions in their assignments, to the stresses in their personal and family lives. For this reason, we propose that foreign serv- ice personnel be paid, at all times, a tax exempt allowance to compensate them for this aspect of their governmental service. I should like to suggest the .following language as a model or outline for your consideration. "The compensation of all foreign service personnel shall be the same as the comparable grade in the General Schedule excepting that foreign service per- sonnel shall be paid a further tax-exempt allowance of 15 percent additional because of their availability to serve world-wide; PROVIDED THAT, IN NO CASE SHALL THIS ALLOWANCE BE LESS THAN $2,000 AND NOT MORE THAN $5,000. This allowance shall be in addition to any other allowance which may be authorized." The minimum and maximum allowances I have suggested are to assure that clerical and other personnel in the higher grades, particularly in the Foreign Senior Executive Service if it is established, do not benefit disproportionately from other members of the Foreign Service. The foregoing tax exempt allowance is to take official notice of the element of incomparability between the foreign service and the civil service, the element Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 of personal commitment to sacrifice which cannot be computed in terms of hours at the desk or office but is written in the burdens of foreign service life where terror and disability and strife is attendant twenty-four hours a day. In this exposure to attack the youngest and the least in time and grade share the trauma with the wisest, the most mature and the most senior in rank. All have this together in the foreign service as a part of their tours abroad, outside the office, outside official hours. Thus this allowance compensates them not primarily for that in which they are comparable to the civil service but for that in which they are incomparable. I should like also to address the issue in which they are comparable-work at the desk, at the guard house, in the pouch room. When testifying before the joint hearing of two House committees, we had been asked to comment on the Hay Study, which was then not available to us. In the interval, we have received copies also of a Report of the Task Force on the Foreign Service Salary System, dated November 20, 1979. Unfortunately, we had not been consulted when either of these reports was being prepared. Had we been, we would have commented that both reports ignored the function of fulcrum, or locus of movement, in reconciling the particular problems in promotions based on rank-in-person with a civil service system based on promotions where rank-in-job exists. Consequently, the findings of the Task Force, as well as the Hay study, resort to extraneous, tangential remedies, rather than intrinsic factors, and do not recognize that movements upward in rank-in-person systems have different institutional and chronological characteristics than those in the civil service. As a tentative proposal, provided largely as a model, we suggest that your Committee consider a classification and pay system, comparable in general terms with the civil service but reflecting intrinsic foreign service structural differences. One model, which we have developed, which seeks to meet both these criteria, would be the following : Old class FSO/ New class FSIO/FS Old FSS class CSC equivalent 1---------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-3 FSS- 1 GS-15 2---------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-4 FSS- 2 GS-14 3---------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-5 FSS- 3 GS-13 4---------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-6 FSS- 4 GS-11 5---------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-7 FSS- 5 GS- 9 6---------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-8 FSS- 6 GS- 8 7------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FSS- 7 GS- 7 8---------------------------------------------------------------=-------------- FSS- 8 GS- 6 9------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FSS- 9 GS- 5 (10) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FSS-10 (GS- 4) The foregoing table recognizes that there will be important career determinant decisions before the selection boards and that, on either the 9 or 10 rank system, certain promotion decisions will be more crucial than others. Moreover, it seeks to motivate and reward employees seeking upward mobility by a larger increase in pay resulting from promotions to Class 4 and to Class 3 under the new system. On the other hand, it seeks to require greater attention and selectivity from management in promoting employees of lesser performance while still permitting employees to be rewarded by increases in pay through step increases. As to the number of steps, we prefer the 10-step system as comparable with the civil service. Moreover, we find it quixotic that the Hay report has proposed 14 steps, adding four steps at the end of each civil service grade, ostensibly to compensate employees for service abroad, late in grade and not throughout the employee's total foreign service. Under the Hay concept, only the less competent would begin to be compensated at the end of a long period of ten years in grade while the more competent would not be rewarded at all since they would have been promoted to the next higher grades and never reached steps 11 to 14. We believe that our proposal for a Foreign Service Allowance achieves the commendable goal sought by the Hay report without the awkwardness and inequities its 14 step system introduces. Our criticisms of the findings of the Task Force relate to the backward-look- ing perspectives on which its judgments were predicated, and we have preferred to anticipate the managerial as well as the employee motivations in a reformed, revitalized foreign service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 In any case, we submit our proposals as another possible alternative to the Hay and Task Force options which are being circulated. PERFORMANCE PAY IN THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE Since the initiation of this legislation we have not been very happy with the concept of "performance pay" as now proposed for the Senior Foreign Service. Our objections are based on several considerations. First, the evidence thus far is that the Executive Departments authorized to utilize Senior Executive Service personnel in the Civil Service have not de- vised any standard method for implementing performance pay. In fact, mil- lions of dollars have been expended in consultant fees seeking to obtain some rational methodology, and the Office of Personnel Management has no pro- posals of its own. Second, some reports from the private sector indicate that the concept of "performance pay" is being abandoned by many of those private enterprise firms which had instituted it. Instead of better management, through coopera- tive team work, the system has produced intrigue and rivalry at managerial levels where cooperation and mutual support are the most important. The re- sult has been to fragment and dissipate managerial initiative. Third, we note that the new Civil Service Senior Executive Service being a tank-in-person system is an anomaly, from a systemic standpoint, in the civil service. Consequently, there was some plausibility to press the anomaly in the compensation' area. However, the entire foreign service operates under a rank-in-person system, and we believe, it would be more prudent to continue to pay the Senior Foreign Service according to the general practices of the rest of the Foreign Service. We would therefore suggest that the Senior For- eign Service have distinct steps in each class so that its members know in ad vance the discrete amount of monetary reward they would receive in terms of their own performance without their having to contrast their own records with those of their colleagues for purposes of receiving compensation. One system might be to have five steps in each class, with one step increase annually for good performance and two or three step, increases for exceptionally meri- torious service in grade. Fourth. we believe that a performance pay system would be much more diffi- cult to operate in the Foreign Service than in the Civil Service due to the wide variation in assignment (i.e. an assignment to a private organization, or a small and peaceful country versus an assignment to a large and influential or an unstable but strategic country), the isolation of officers at many overseas posts, the inducement this would provide for "cronyism" and the difficulty of adminis- tering such a system through the selection board process. There is a myth that "selection out" and early mandatory retirement at age 60 is a feature of the foreign service alone. It' exists in the civil service as well for special categories, particularly the officers of the Federal Bureau of Investi- gation, other law enforcement groups, firefighters and air traffic controllers and employees of the Alaska Railroad. In fact. for most of them, mandatory retire- ment is at a lower age than 60..I request permission to include as Attachment II hereto extracts from Title V, sections 8335 and 8336 on Mandatory Separation and Immediate Retirement. But there are two major differences. First, these persons can continue to stay in the civil service in other functions besides their original specialties. Second, their annuities are computed, for the first twenty years of service at 2.5 percent, and not the 2.0 percent offered foreign service personnel. To qualify for this larger annuity, they contribute 7.5 percent to their retirement annuity instead of 7.0 percent. I should like to suggest that all foreign service personnel required to serve. world wide be brought under provisions similar to those afforded these categories: I mentioned. Under my proposal these computation formulas would be portable. so that any separated foreign service officer would be eligible for the higher 2.5 percent rate for all their actual foreign service. In summary, the following retirement provisions would apply to all persons in the foreign service : First twenty years computed at 2%; remainder at 2 per- cent, with voluntary retirement at any age after five years service abroad. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 SPECIAL PROBLEMS AT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY There are several problems at the International Communication Agency which are the result of past errors made by the Department of State in seeking to establish a domestic foreign service. The one most frequently mentioned in testi- mony by Administration spokesmen concerns the so-called Foreign Affairs Specialist category, a term of art for "domestic foreign service" personnel. Among the other problems are such matters as employment rights at the Voice of America, retirement credit for former Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty person- nel and for retired Bi-National Grantees, and the employment of spouses of ICA personnel abroad. FAS : ITS ORIGINS AND ITS AFTERMATH None of the Administration spokesmen have informed you that our union was adamantly opposed to the introduction of the Foreign Affairs Specialist program. In fact, we were so much opposed that we spent $50,000 in legal fees bringing a suit against James Keogh, Director USIA, and Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State, to declare its installation to be illegal. We had a partial superficial victory, in as much as Judge Howard J. Corcoran required that the only persons who could be appointed to the Foreign Affairs Specialist catgory had first to serve three years as Foreign Service Reserve Of- ficers or Foreign Service Reserve Unlimited Officers. However, since Judge Corcoran did not specify that these three years had to be served overseas, we lost the essence of our suit and the Foreign Affairs Specialist program was in- stalled both at the State Department and at the United States Information Agency, over our strongest objections. With your permission, I should like to append hereto, at the very end of all the other attachments, a copy of the court decision on the FAS programs. Let us be frank about this program. Its main purpose was to entice civil serv- ice personnel out of the civil service category in order to free management from the civil service safeguards provided to all civil service employees. Why then did our members join the Foreign Affairs Specialist program? Be- cause concurrently with its introduction, positions in the higher grades were withdrawn from civil service competition and restricted only to personnel who were in the FAS or other foreign service category. Civil service category per- sonnel had available only "dead-end" jobs. If one did not join FAS, one would not get a promotion. If one did join, one was assured an immediate increase in pay and greater opportunity for promotion as a reward for voluntary entry. Why did the State Department want to use this peculiar Foreign Affairs Spe- cialist program-why did it insist that the Attorney General oppose our-suit? For one simple reason. It was opposed to the existence of personnel rights based on some outside authority or statute to which its employees could appeal. You may recall that this is the period when the State Department waged war on its personnel. This is the period when Charles William Thomas committed suicide because the management of the Foreign Service did not wish to admit it had committed a grievous error in selecting him out. This is the period when the Charles William Thomas Legal Defense Fund brought a successful suit, also costing $50,000, to assure that the personnel records of foreign service per- sonnel did not contain false or ex parte information. This was the period when the Congress finally passed the grievance procedures which became self-evidently necessary following our suits. After our union achieved victory over a rival organization to represent for- eign service personnel, we proceeded to attack the inequities of the system from the inside. Ultimately we reached an agreement with a new administration in USICA to bring the program to an end. This is the "contract" about which there has been so much discussion. Management agreed to stop hiring FAS employees. We agreed to eliminate selection boards for FAS employees and to permit these personnel to exercise the right all other civil service personnel have-to bid on jobs in the civil service category. On the other hand we obtained reaffirma- tion of the commitment, an enticement by management, that retirement would be under the foreign service, including mandatory retirement at 60, if a person chose to remain under such an appointment. For those preferring otherwise, we obtained a guarantee that they could convert to Civil Service status essentially as a matter of right until June 30, 1981. I want to emphasize these were concessions made to us for the manipulation and coercion of our personnel under the FAS program. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 To our Local 1512, this agreement represents the considered judgment of both the union and management as to the fairest way to phase out the FAS program. Obviously the agency concluded that the existence of a residual force of do- mestic foreign service employees was something that could be lived with. In the case of both the union and the agency, the desire was to find the most equi- table ending to the unhappy history of FAS. Should there be reasons why the Congress would feel it could not continue this arrangement, we would petition that the principal elements of the contract be preserved for the individual FAS members after their mandatory conversion as personal perquisites. These are: (1) Right to retire voluntarily on present foreign service computation formula (2 percent for all years of service). They would not have the right to invoke the 21 percent retirement formula which I have proposed for persons who serve overseas. (2) Right to retain permanently, their classification and pay under the FAS rank-in-person formula in the event of downgrading of any position they may occupy. (3) Exemption from "selection out" except for reasons identical with dis- missal for cause in the civil service. (4) Full access to the protections afforded all civil service employees under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. (5) Right to voluntarily convert to the civil,service at any time up to June 30, 1961. THE AUTONOMY OF USICA From the beginning of public discussion on a proposal to reform the Foreign Service personnel system we have been concerned with the role of USICA. The proposal was solely a State Department initiative-discussion with USICA man- agement and employee representatives was, from our perspective, minimal at the early stages. By the time our comments were seriously solicited and by the time the Director submitted his comprehensive response to the Department, the issue was not whether there would be a reform bill, but only what form spe- cific measures would take within the general format already adopted by the De- partment. We found, very persuasive the arguments made by Director Rein- hardt in his March 26 letter to Under-Secretary Read, that certain problems at which the proposal was aimed do not exist in USICA or are well on their way to solution. But obviously the Department was beyond the point of willingness to either reconsider its decision to move ahead with omnibus legislation, or seriously depart from its proposals. This, the record should be clear that this legislation was not designed with USICA in mind. Our task, and that of the agency, in the last few months has been to try to modify the bill to a form that at least can be lived with. That effort has only been minimally successful. We agree that improvements have been made, particularly in the area of returning to each agency head the authority to make specific provisions with regard to such things as length of the SIPS threshold. And we appreciate the addition of section 202(d) which provides that the statute shall not be constructed as to diminish the authority of the Director of USICA. Nevertheless we are still con- cerned with provisions in the bill that suggest a different intention, specifically the requirement that the foreign affairs agencies achieve "maximum compati- bility." We agree that a degree of compatibility must exist to facilitate personnel exchanges and to allow for reasonable personnel administration abroad, but the adjective "maximum" transforms "compatibility" into "uniformity." Our concern on this issue can only be appreciated in the context of the his- torical relationship between the Department and USICA. The employees of USICA have over the years been subject to various disruptions and manipula- tions. the FAS program. being a timely example; most of which originated with the Department of State and were transmitted to, or imposed on. that agency. The failure of the Department to try to bring order to the resulting chaos in recent years is in sharp contrast to the efforts made in USICA by both man- agement and the union. While we have agreed and still agree that personnel reform is necessary in USICA we believe that reforms are most likely to occur and to be constructive when the independence of USTCA in personnel matters is assured and the agency is freed from the necessity of accommodating the special personnel and political problems current in the Department of State. The issue of the integrity of the news, educational and cultural programs of USTCA was a major concern of Congressman Fascell's Subcommittee is discus- sions on the reorganization plan which established USICA. We hope that this Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 concern will manifest itself again in careful scrutiny of this legislation to insure that neither the agency, the Director, nor the FSIO corps is compromised. To this end we propose amending section 1203 to delete the word "maximum" modi- fying the word "compatibility." The same deletion would be made in section 2403. We would also ask for assurances that section 204 is intended to give no authority to the Director General over the personnel system of USICA. In addi- tion we request amendment of section 441(d) to provide that the determination of nominations for performance pay for meritorious or distinguished service be made separately within each agency, not by an interagency board whose recom- mendations will ultimately be reviewed by the Secretary. The Director of USICA should be able to submit nominations to the President, or if considered appropri- ate, to a third party, such as OPM, without going through the Secretary of State. The present formulation represents, in our view, a first step toward a single, interagency SFS, a creation we would strongly oppose since it would under- mine not only the autonomy of the agency, but also of the separate FSIO corps. VOICE OF AMERICA-ITS FAILURES A. Broadcasting Mission The Voice of America continues to be beset with certain failures, some result- ing from its basic philosophy of international communication, others from its treatment of personnel. In a sense, these are interrelated. One of its principal failures in the last year is in the area of foreign language broadcasting. During the entire period of the Iranian crisis, prior to and after the Shah's departure from Iran, while the Soviet Union was intensifying its broadcasts, the Voice of America was silent. Not one:word, not one minute was broadcast in Farsi, the majority language in Iran, until April of this year, when a half hour of service was begun. On November 6, two days after the seizure of our embassy, broadcast time was increased to one hour. An analogous situation appears to exist in the broadcasts to Yugoslavia-these are in "Serbo-Croat", angering the indigenous Croatian population of more than six million who wish to have broadcasts in "Croatian". Similarly, the few VOA broadcasts to Haiti are in French, not Creole, the language of 95 percent of the people. Consequently, Haitians listen to Radio Havana and Radio Moscow, not to the Voice of America. These unhappy situations result from a policy which many past Administra- tions, apparently with the acquiescence of Congress, have pursued in the foreign language. broadcast area, in the apparent belief that one can ignore those people who are friends. Apparently, so far as the Voice of America goes, the assump- tion is that the people we regard as friends today should listen to our broadcasts in English, not their own language. For this reason, it appears, there were no broadcasts to Iran, just as there are today no broadcasts to Japan. Our union urges the Congress to review this policy, particularly since the many crises which we confront show that even our friends do not always understand our foreign policies. There is just as much concern, we have learned, in Japan about our positions in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, South Africa, Cambodia as there is in these countries which are directly affected. I submit to your consideration the advisability of Congress raising with the Administration, as an oversight function, the introduction of broadcasting to our "friends", while they are still "friends" and not merely broadcasting to arbas where we believe we do not have "friends." In fact, such a tacit policy as we now have suggests to many people that our primary goal is propaganda and not communication, propaganda in competition with that of the Soviet Union rather than a means of positive communication from our nation to all peoples of the world. B. Broadcasting Personnel Policies A second failure of the Voice of America relates to its personnel practices in foreign language broadcasting. Last February we raised this issue with the Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee while commenting on a section of the 1980-1981 USICA authorization bill which amended the statutory authority of the Voice of America to hire non-citizens to work in the United States and is now enacted in law. The problem which this provision addressed was the under-classification of alien VOA broadcasters who under previous statutory language could not receive Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 a grade higher than GS-11. We pointed out that this was a factor in creating the present situation where grade levels of American national foreign language broadcasters, we believe, are unfairly depressed below those of the English language broadcasters. This situation has led to morale problems among foreign language broad- casters-citizen and alien-who believe they are being denied the basic con- stitutional right of equal pay for equal work. I am happy to report that since last February, the agency, responding to initiatives from AFGE, has made seri- ous progress with a Task Force Study aimed at rectifying unjustified classi- fication disparities. It is our hope that the final results, both at the agency level and within the Office of Personnel Management, will be a constructive resolution of the issue. We would like to return and report to the Congress when those results are known. C. Fringe Benefits for its Employees The Agency has not made an effort to obtain proper retirement benefits for a certain group of its employees ; specifically those who formerly served as in- ternational broadcasters with Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and the Armed Forces Network, Europe. This year we raised the issue again in connection with 1980-1981 USICA authorization bill, but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee decided to con- sider it in connection with the personnel bill which is now here as the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979. This subject has a direct impact on the morale of certain USICA employees. Admittedly, it is a matter of past mistakes in seek- ing to make covert what has, since then, become overt. The number of these RFE/RL employees who are still alive and employed in the Federal Service cannot exceed fifty. Of these the greatest number, perhaps thirty, are now with the Voice of America, which has benefitted greatly by hav- ing had them available as trained RFE/RL broadcasters and not having had to give them any training. Thus, VOA and the American taxpayer have benefitted far more already than the costs of the additional annuities. We estimate that the additional cost. at the very most, of these additional annuities would reach approximately $100,000 annually, provided that the pur- ported beneficiaries first paid into the retirement fund an amount of approxi- mately $125,000 to purchase these benefits. Considering the interests rates now being earned, considering that the beneficiaries would be receiving back in the first three years of retirement only their own contributions, considering the age of these prospective beneficiaries, our estimate is that the actual retirement cost over the life of these employees may be not more than $500,000 at the most and might be as little as $250,000. All these Federal employees for whom we petition equity have in common prior service with those radio operations established and funded by the Federal Gov- ernment in the late 1940s and early 1950s-and still funded today by the Federal Government under Congressional authorizations and appropriations. All for- merly served with either the American Forces Network, Europe ; Radio Free Europe; or Radio Liberty (one former employee or RL also served at Radio Free Asia). As you know, the American Forces Network is operated world-wide by the Department of Defense. Employees of the Network in Asia were paid by the De'bartment from Appropriated funds. They were thus Federal employees, and were entitled to Civil Service retirement credit. Employees of the American Forces Network. Europe, however, were paid by the Department from Non- Appropriated Funds. In these circumstances they were not considered to be Federal employees, and were deprived of Civil Service retirement credit. We believe that simple justice and equity call for eliminating this discrimination for former employees of AFN(E) who are now in the Federal Government, so that they may obtain Civil Service retirement credit for the time served with AFN(E). The Free Europe organization and Radio Liberty were, of course. funded by the Central Intelligence Agency for the first two decades of their existence. The CIA's funding was clandestine. This arrangement sought to achieve two things : to allow listeners to believe that the Radios were not United States Government agencies, and to allow the United States Government to say things Which could not then be attributed to it. In the circumstances of the day, these were no doubt legitimate aims. It seems to us not to be legitimate, however, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 293 to perpetuate those aims today by penalizing those who served them loyally in other circumstances in the past. Denial of Civil Service retirement benefits to employees of RFE and RL was part and parcel of the clandestine funding arrangements (although, curiously enough, those benefits were not denied to CIA officers, or to U.S. Foreign Service Officers, assigned to the Radios). Because the Radios were originally viewed as short-term operations, undertaken in what appeared to be imminent danger of war (broadcasters were in fact inaugurated during the Korean War), a pension plan and retirement benefits for the Radios' employees were not even contem- plated by the Radios' managements and clandestine funders until a whole decade of operations had passed. Even then they were only accepted by those who directed the Radios on the initiative of the unions involved. Notwithstanding the absence of retirement benefits, no effort was made by the Radios' managements to compensate employees for their disadvantaged po- sition in comparison to others serving the Federal Government. In fact, the union initiative which eventually led to establishment of a retirement system began in 1957 with a concerned-and unsuccessful-effort to raise the level of staff pay to that prevailing at the Voice of America (with no hope of achieving levels equal to comparable private industry). In 1957 the first union contract at Radio Free Europe, for example, set salary scales and provided for a 15% general increase in salaries, either through those salary scales or a general increase, whichever was greater. The new RFE salary scales gave a Deputy Desk Chief $115 a week, a Senior Editor $100 a week. The comparable Voice of America figures at that time (GS-12 and GS-11 or GS-10) were $145 and $122 or $133 a week. The 1958 RFE contract brought increases of $5 per week in Radio salaries-still below the comparable VOA pay. The union negotiators of that time tell us that the Radio managements, in the discussions which eventually produced a retirement plan, never once sug- gested that introduction of such a system should involve some reduction in pay or benefits originally given to the Radios' staffs to compensate for the lack of retirement benefits. Indeed, in view of the facts of staff compensation, any such claim would have been untenable. When the Radios finally agreed in 1959 to the introduction of pension plans, they imposed a requirement of 10 years' service as a full-scale employee for the vesting of an employee's rights in the plans. This meant that those who left the Radios with less than 10 years' service and entered other Federal employ- ment lost those years so far as credit for their retirement is concerned. As for former employees of the Radios whose service equalled or exceeded 10 years (there are about 10 such persons in Federal employ) their Radio pensions- available to them at age 65, or in reduced amounts at ages down to 60-would be based on their lower earnings when much younger, and on salary scales a fraction of today's. They would thus represent a considerable loss compared to giving them full credit for all of their Federal service. Depending on their category of employment, some persons now Federal em- ployees made contributions to the United States Social Security System while at the Radios. Others did not. (In the case of a number of former Radio em- ployees now in Federal employ, they achieved American citizenship, and with it the possibility of Federal employment, including VOA, while serving the Radios abroad only thanks to an Act of Congress which specifically permitted them to count time serving the Radios abroad towards the residence requirement for naturalization.) Even among those who made Social Security contributions, there are those whose contributions were below the minimum required for vest- ing in the Social Security System. That time and their contributions are now lost to them. There are approximately 50 current employees of the Federal Government who are affected by the inequities we are addressing. Some 44 are now working at the Voice of America. The other half-dozen are employed by such other Fed- eral agencies as the ICA, the Trust Territories of the Pacific, the Board for In- ternational Broadcasting, the Department of Energy, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the General Accounting Office. On behalf of these 50 current employees of the Federal Government we would therefore like to solicit your support for an amendment to Title 5, United States Code. It concerns Chapter 83-Retirement, particularly Section 8332, Creditable service. We are offering some suggested rewording of that Section which would specifi- cally forbid use of prior service with the Government-funded Radios for benefits Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 under any other retirement system if used for credit under the Federal retire- ment system. This means that Federal employees who credit their service with the Radios for Federal retirement benefits cannot also credit that same time for benefits from the Radios' retirement plans or from the Social Security System. But there are other concerns, besides the possibility of "double dipping," which need to be addressed. One is to the effect that however equitable or just this remedy might be, it risks creating a "precedent" that would open the flood- gates to a deluge of demands on the Federal retirement system by great num- bers of persons formerly associated in one way or another with CIA clandt Stine operations, and therefore these particular inequities should be continued. We believe that the Congress of the United States, which sets no precedents if it does not wish to do so, is not as powerless to remedy inequities as this view- point suggests. Beyond that, the suggestion of "precedent" merits closer examination : there are specific features of the Government-funded Radios that make them entirely unique-and inapplicable as "precedents." For one, although RFE and RL were "clandestinely funded" by the CIA, they were not "clandestine organizations." Their functions, indeed, the organizations themselves, were openly and publicly espoused by Presidents of the United States, and by leading members of the Legislative and Executive Branches, of both par- ties. This cannot be said of any CIA "clandestine operations." This unique status of the Government-funded Radios made it possible for their clandestine funders to avoid-indeed, it precluded-the special incentives, awards, or bonuses characteristic of CIA "clandestine operations." The employees of the Radios were thus not only disadvantaged in comparison to those in other regular Federal service-in terms of their employment-but, precisely because of the unique status of the Radios, they (except for the CIA agents in their midst) were deprived as well as any possible special benefits that might accom- pany CIA employment. For another, and even more importantly, the existence of RFE and RL, after more than 20 years of clandestine funding, was openly and fully debated by the United States Congress in 1971-72. The Congress decided, by a very large majority, that the two Radios should be continued in the national interest, and that they should be funded by the regular and open Congressional procedures. There is no other case of the Congress mandating the continued existence and assuming the funding of activities previously funded by the CIA. These unique features of the Radios, of course, refer to the past. To a past of ambiguities and improvisations. Our appeal to you concerns-indeed, is specific- ally limited to-leftovers of that past. For this reason our suggested rewording of Section 8332, Title 5, United States Code, confines the remedy we seek to those presently affected, i.e., to persons employed by the Federal Government only as of the date of enactment of the amendment. We therefore, hope that this Committee, as a matter of justice and equity, will see fit to grant the remedy sought, which it appears can be achieved most simply by amending Section 8332 of Title 5, United States Code, as follows : Retirement Credit for Service With Government-Funded Radios Sec. (a) Section 8332 (b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended- (1) by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (8) ; (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and "and"; (3) by inserting immediately after paragraph (9) the following: "(10) subject to sections 8334(c) and 8339(i) of this title, service (other than service performed before July 1, 1946) ' in any full-time capacity for at least 130 working days a year, beginning after December 1, 1945, to the National Com- mittee for a Free Europe, Free Europe Committee, Incorporated, Free Europe, Incorporated, Radio Liberation Committee, Radio Liberty Committee, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Incorporated, RFE/RL, Incorporated, Radio Free Asia, the Asia Foundation, the American Forces Network, Europe, or any part thereof, if such service is not credited for benefits under any other retirement system."; and (4) by inserting between the second and third sentences immediately following paragraph (1), as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection, the following: "The Office of Personnel Management shall accept the certification of the Execu- tive Director of the Board for International Broadcasting concerning service for the purpose of this subchapter of the type described in paragraph (10).". Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply only with respect to an employee, as defined in section 5311 (1) of title 5, United States Code, who is so employed on the date of enactment of this Act. RETIREMENT EQUITY FOR BINATIONAL CENTER EMPLOYEES The BiNational Center Grantee problem arose in the United States Informa- tion Agency many years ago, but it has had its solution frustrated repeatedly and obsessively by the Secretary of State who administers the Foreign Service Retirement Fund and has been unsympathetic to the needs of USIA (now ICA) employees. Even though USIA management agreed that these employees were entitled to retirement credit, the State Department, supported by the Civil Service Commission, objected and suit was brought by our union. On May 2, 1974, Federal Judge Albert Bryant ruled in Taylor v Hampton (Civil Action No. 1178-72) that BiNational Center grantees met all the criteria of Federal government employment and were entitled to credit under the Federal retire- ment system. The court order read as follows : U.S. District Court For The District of Columbia WAYNE W. TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF ROBERT HAMPTON, ET AL., DEFENDANT CIVIL ACTION 1178-72 ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, and of the entire record herein, and it appearing to the Court that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact involved in this cause, and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment herein as a matter of law, it is by the Court this second day of May, 1974. ORDERED : That the Defendant's motion for summary judgment be denied and Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment be granted. (Signed) WILLIAM B. BRYANT, Judge. All those persons who were still in Federal employment were automatically able to benefit from this ruling. The Secretary of State interpreted the court order as applying only to personnel still on the rolls of the Foreign Service at the State Department and the United States Information Agency. For this reason the case was again taken to the court, on September 11, 1975, at which point the Secretary yielded to our view that the retirement credit also applied to all those who had been already retired either under Civil Service or For- eign Service and their annuities were adjusted retroactively. This brought equity to almost all the persons except those who had been hired directly as BiNational Center grantees and were not ever shown, for that reason, as employees of the Foreign Service. Of these there are only a few still alive and equity would suggest that they also be entitled to credit under the foreign service retirement system. The Secretary of State, however, still interprets the court ruling to their prejudice despite the obvious fact, now con- ceded by ICA, that they were foreign service employees. An example of the problem is the case of Paul Johnson of Newport, Rhode Island. Because of an administrative USIA ruling against "cancer" employ- ment after age 60, he was given further "limited indefinite FSS" status which excluded him from the retirement system even though he had previously served nearly six years as a BiNational Center grantee. Had that BiNational grantee been recognized, he would have been considered to be in the career foreign service and his subsequent FSS appointment computed as part of the foreign service retirement system. Thus he was doubly denied retirement credit. For the reasons given, I request equity for those very few persons, such as Paul Johnson, and petition you to incorporate the following text in the legislation you are drafting. "Any person who was appointed as a BiNational Center Grantee and who has completed at least five years satisfactory service in that capacity or any other appointment under the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, shall become a participant in the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and shall Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 make an appropriate contribution to the Foreign 'Service Retirement and Dis- ability Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 652 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended. ICA SPOUSES ABROAD We favor the employment of spouses abroad in all non-career positions. How- ever, complaints have been received that the spouses of -senior Foreign Service Officers, who write the efficiency reports of more junior Foreign Service personnel officers at post abroad, manage to get much better positions much faster than the spouses of Foreign 'Service Information Officers. Our complaint here appears to parallel the general complaint of many women that the spouses of influential senior government officials somehow manage to get higher level grades in Wash- ington than an equally competent wife of a private citizen or a lower ranking civil servant. We would wish to have equal affirmative outreach action among wives, especially since those married to lower, ranking males probably need the money more than the spouses of senior officers. This complaint, by the way, is even more true of the spouses of personnel employed by the Agency for Inter- national Development. The most immediate problem at the Agency for International Development relates to the developments initiated by the so-called Obey Amendment and the "Regulations" submitted to the Congress on May 1, 1979. We consider the Regulations most mischievous, and rather than repeating argu- ments which we have employed earlier, we should like your permission to attach them as Annex III to this statement and to summarize some, expatriating only on those issues which treat with equity, particularly for women, minorities and all other persons now in the clerical or technical positions who are qualified to assume professional and administrative roles when opportunities arise. The Agency for International Development, concedes that the Regulations will not result in a single additional position becoming available abroad. These positions are set by ceilings imposed by the Secretary of State and unless the Congress mandates by legislation more positions abroad, the Regulations will not achieve the alleged legislative purpose of the so-called Obey Amendment. Con- sequently, the Regualtions fail to achieve the very purpose for which they were intended by Representative Obey. That in itself is mischievous behavior- pretending to be able to achieve something which will not be possible. The second mischief is worse. Prior to issuing the regulations, the Agency for International Development had been spared one of the acute problems that have plagued the Department of State and the International Communication Agency- this is the pretense to a higher personnel status arising from an established ex- clusive right to certain so-called "prestige" jobs in Washington. Unlike the De- partment of 'State and the International Communication Agency, AID had for- merly assigned foreign service personnel and civil service personnel to any and every -position as it became available and claimed that it sought the best qualified person to fill that position. Because foreign service experience is an important, sometimes the most important, factor in filling certain positions, many of these have been regularly assigned to members of the foreign service. However, in the event some civil service person was more qualified than the available foreign service personnel, the position could be filled immediately by that person in the civil service. This advantage to both management and employees is now lost. Al- ready 809 positions in Washington have been designated exclusively for oc- cupancy by Foreign Service personnel. The impact of the change will be unfortunate. In the past, as more and more younger women, particularly persons of black (African) and Hispanic back- ground, became educated in foreign policy matters, they discovered that, while they still had to enter at the clerical and technical level they could at least aspire to professional and administrative functions. The past system could facilitate Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 such an upward mobility if applied consistently because the best qualified person, irrespective 'of foreign or domestic service, could apply for assignment. The new regulations frustrate this because these "prestige" professional jobs are now designated as foreign service and thereby they are segregated, by administrative decision. Only persons who serve abroad now are entitled to fill them. This places a premium on, and gives an inordinate advantage to, past foreign service. Some person, let us say a white male, who entered the AID foreign service ten years ago and served mostly in Afghanistan or Pakistan, now knows that certain prestige positions are in effect restricted by regulation to white males in the AID foreign service, even in areas not related to their 'awn experience. The most educated married black woman, in the General Schedule, who has a graduate degree in West African affairs and who is much more qualified than anyone else in AID, would have difficulty in obtaining an assignment, for example, on the Ghana desk, because that position now has been "reserved" to the foreign service. She might have to remain a typist or secretary or computer operator all her career at the Agency. We believe this situation leads to a caste system, institutionalized supposedly to send more people abroad, but actually serving only as an additional barrier to equal opportunity and affirmative action at home. For this reason we continue to oppose these regulations as being mischievous and because we consider them questionable and not in compliance with several Constitutional and statutory requirements seeking to foster equal employment opportunities and genuine competitiveness based on merit principles. The Regulations have been in force long enough for AID employees to ex- perience their discriminatory impact. For example, GS employees have applied for conversion to the Foreign Service and have been denied conversion due to the alleged non-availability of actual foreign service positions abroad. Never- theless, individuals are being hired as new employees into the foreign service and assigned to Washington positions newly designated for the foreign service. This relates to the right of present AID employees of access to foreign service positions. But even in the matter of their rights to remain in their present posi- tions, General Schedule employees are suffering discrimination. Many of those who encumber positions that are now being designated Foreign Service are not permitted to retain their jobs, as the Agency assured Congress when submittting the Regulations. Instead they are being reassigned to other General Schedule positions. Unless the Congress reviews the highly questionable, reactionary policies now being carried out at the Agency for International Development, we fear that the morale and efficiency of that Agency will further decline to the level of a likely scandal. We most earnestly urge that the Congress review this situation at the very earliest possible date to ascertain whether these Regulations are compatible wtih the fundamental purpose of Foreign Service reform as per- ceived by the Administration in its own bill or as defined by Congress in its legislative wisdom. In the interim, it might be reassuring to the employees of the Agency for International Development if your Committee requested the Comptroller Gen- eral and the General Accounting Office to prepare a report as to the proprieties of the actions taken in the management at AID in drafting these regulations and in implementing them in a fashion inconsistent to commitments made to the Congress when they were issued. . I should like to reiterate our most sincere appreciation for your invitation to testify before this Committee and to assure you of the fullest cooperation of our two locals and our national headquarters in your enterprise. I would like to take the opportuniity to stress that good foreign policy de- cisions depend not only on good personnel but on proper institutional struc- tures. I share the view of many persons, including the members of the so-called Murphy Commission, that these are now in disarray and that it is important to relate the operations of the Departments of Agriculture. Commerce, Energy, Labor and Treasury more closely to those of the recognized foreign affairs agen- cies, AID, ICA and the State Department. And I would like to again emphasize that it is critical at this time that due recognition be made of the commitment and personal sacrifice of members of the foreign service to the nation. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 ANNEX 1 TO STATEMENT OF KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 1. SECTION 204. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL This section gives the Director General a vague jurisdiction over the Foreign Service employees of USICA which does not currently exist. Neither the State Department nor the Director General has an obligation to consult with USICA employees or their exclusive representative. Therefore, the greater the role of the Director General in USICA personnel matters, the less meaningful is our collective bargaining relationship with the agency. In addition, the authority of the USICA Director is undermined. We ask for clarification that the Director General will exercise no authority over the Foreign Service personnel of USICA or AID. We do not understand what function the Board is expected to fulfill now that labor-management relations and other adjudicatory functions have been as- signed to other authorities. For the same reasons discussed above, we cannot accept a situation where the Board is making personnel rules and regulations. If the Board is to be retained purely as an advisory body, it should be insured some degree of independence by a provision that administrative services will be ,provided to it upon request of the Chairman. We are disturbed that the Department of State apparently does not intend to make available its pay proposals during the period that this bill is under dis- cussion. We object to this since from the beginning, the Department has enlisted support for its legislative effort by suggesting that it would improve Foreign Service pay. Since the Hay Study Report is complete, the State Department and OMB should make known its proposals for pay linkage. Subsection (c)-We have misgivings about selection boards making recom- mendations for performance pay. The same board will be determining pay, pro- motion and retention. Different factors are involved in each of these determina- tions. Selection boards already work under the pressure of time and limited resources. Adding this function will worsen that situation. If performance pay must be instituted, we suggest that an alternative mechanism be devised for administering it. Subsection (d)-As written, this section provides that recommendations for the highest performance awards to SFS members in all three foreign affairs agencies must be reviewed by the Secretary of State before going to the Presi- dent. We propose amending the section to allow, the Director of USICA and AID Administrator to'make recommendations directly to the President or to a third party such as the Office of Personnel Management. This provision was passed by Congress as a substitute for premium pay after the latter was prohibited to all Foreign Service Officers and Foreign Service In- formation Officers by the Pell Amendment (section 412, P.L. 95-105). We opposed the Pell amendment and have sought its repeal. Junior and middle level officers should be entitled to overtime compensation on the same basis as other govern- ment employees. Special allowances are not an adequate substitute. Only seven positions in USICA are currently certified as eligible. Item (2) should be deleted, per our comments regarding section 441, perform- ance pay. 7. SECTION 602. PROMOTION AND RETENTION IN THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE Subsection ('b)-This section should be deleted. By making the need for attri- tion a prominent factor, this section conflicts with the provision that promotions will be made based upon merit principles. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Subsection (a)-Provision should be made for a minimum time-in-class for those in the SFS if the "limited extension" is retained, to assure to officers a reasonable expectation of continued employment for a given period. Periods of live and eight years have been suggested. Subsection (b) -Deletion should be made of the "limited extension". This pro- vision has no equivalent in the Civil Service Senior Executive Service. It places awesome power into the hands of management to eliminate senior level officers for any number of reasons, and to keep them in a constant state of uncertainty and conformity. In our view this device will not enhance performance considera- tions but will expand the area for non-performance factors. Subsection (c)-We propose amendment of this section to provide a "para- chute clause" similar to that in the SFS to entitle a SFS member to retreat to the FS-1 level for the remainder of time-in-class. Addition would be made of the following language : "Members of the Senior Foreign Service shall, upon election, be entitled to return to the FS-1 level and assigned to a non-SFS position for the period, if any, remaining to be served in class 1 under applicable time-in-class regulations. In determining the length of time remaining, periods previously served in class 1 and periods served in the SFS shall be subtracted from the time-in-class period." Our position is that the labor management chapter of the Civil Service Reform Act should apply to the Foreign Service except with regard to definition of unit and unit membership. The existing units reflect the unique characteristics of the Foreign Service although admittedly they do not conform with normal labor relations principles. Should the present legislation go forward with a separate labor management system for the Foreign Service, we have the following specific objections or comments which in large part, simply point to areas in which the proposed bill is not equivalent to the Civil Service Reform Act. Section 1005 (a) Management Rights-In paragraph 1, deletion should be made of. the words, "of types and classes". In paragraph 2, deletion should be made of the word "promote". Paragraph 5 should be deleted in its entirety. Section 1011. Foreign Service Labor Relations Board-The Board should be made independent from the Secretary of State. Establishment of an independent third party whose members are removable only by the President for cause was a major objective of the labor management section of the Civil Service Reform Act. We would point out that the Foreign 'Service Labor Relations Board does not incilude a General Counsel to prosecute unfair labor practices. Section 1014. Foreign Service Impasse Panel-In subsection (e) deletion should be made of the words, "or the Secretary finds that the Panel's action is contrary to the best interests of the Service". As written, the Panel's final orders are not binding on the foreign affairs agencies. Section 1103. Freedom of Action-Subsection (b) represents a departure from current procedures which we do not favor since we believe that with regard to a legislated appeal procedure, individual choice of a representative is most appro- priate. The Foreign Service Grievance Board has jurisdiction over matters which in the Civil Service system would be considered adverse actions and appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Therefore, we propose deletion of subsection (b) and substitution of the following: "(b) The grievant has the right to a representative of his or her own choos- ing at every stage of the proceedings. The grievant and his/her representatives who are under the control, supervision or responsibility of the foreign affairs agencies shall be granted reasonable periods of administrative leave to prepare be present and to present the grievance. Where the grievant is not represented by the exclusive representative for Foreign Service employees of the agency, the exclusive representative shall have the right to be present during the griev- The Statute should abandon the distinction between those cases in which rem- .edies may only be recommended by the Board and those cases in which rem- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 edies may be ordered. The procedure should be made equivalent to binding arbitration. This would be achieved by making the following amendments to section 1113: Delete subsection (d). Revise subsection (b) as follows: add a new paragraph (5), "to promote an employee who is'found to have previously failed to receive proper con- sideration. Promotion may be made retroactive where the Board finds that, but for the failure to be properly considered, the grievant would have been promoted." 11. SECTION 1203. COMPATIBILITY AMONG AGENCIES EMPLOYING FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL Deletion should be made of the word "maximum" in the third line of the sec- tion. While we agree that the personnel systems of the foreign affairs agencies should be compatible enough to permit interchange of employees and reason- able personnel administration at overseas posts, the word "maximum" implies much more, and perhaps, uniformity. There are any number of reasons why each, agency should be able to manage. its own personnel : different promotion pat- terns and rates of attrition, special needs for specialists, varying degrees of poli- tical sensitivity. Congress recently affirmed its belief that USICA should be an autonomous agency. To insure that autonomy, references to "maximum" com- patibility should be eliminated. 12. SECTION 1205. EXCLUSIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY Deletion should be made of part (6) in accord with our comments on section 441 (nominations for performance awards). Deletion should be made of part (12) in accord with our comments on section 1011 of Chapter 10 (Foreign Service Labor Relations Board). 13. SECTION 2102. CONVERSION TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE SCHEDULE Subsection (f)-Deletion should be made in lines 16-17 of the words, "not more than three years after the effective date of this Act", and substitution made of the words, "the time-in-class period to be determined by the Secretary which in no case shall' be less than five years". This provision has no equivalent in the Civil Service Senior Executive Service where'a person not opting into the SES may remain in grade without loss of pay or benefits and does not face termina- tion. The section as proposed is coercive ; an 'individual not within three years of retirement will have no choice but to enter the SFS. Entry into the SFS is supposed to be voluntary. 14. SECTION 2103. CONVERSION INTO THE CIVIL SERVICE Subsection (b) (1)-Deletion should be made of the words, "prior to July 1, 1981". This date does not represent the expiration date of the AFGE 1812/ USICA agreement regarding domestic Foreign Service employees. 15. SECTION 2104. PRESERVATION OF'STATUS AND BENEFITS Under Secretary of State Read testified on June 21 that employees converted to the Civil Service will not be subject to loss of pay or grade as long as they do not voluntarily move to a different position. This guarantee does not appear in the bill. 16. SECTION 2403. REPORTS Deletion should be made of. the. word, "maximum" in lines.7-8 on page. 203 in accord with comments made on section 1203 (Compatibility among agencies em- ploying Foreign Service personnel). This section assigns solely to the Secretary of State the duty of reporting to Congress and making recommendations on the progress of achieving conformity. The Director of USICA and Administrator of AID should be given access to the Congress to report and recommend. Foreign Service employees in USICA fear that this section is an invitation for a recommendation to eliminate the separate FSIO corps, a step that we would vigorously oppose. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 8335. Mandatory separation (a) An air traffic controller shall be separated from the service on the last day of the month in which he becomes 56 years of age. The Secretary of Transporta- tion, under such regulations as he may prescribe, may exempt a controller having exceptional skills and experience as a controller from the automatic separation provisions of this subsection until that controller becomes 61 years of age. The Secretary of Transportation shall notify the controller in writing of the date of separation at least 60 days before that date. Action to separate the controller is not effective, without the consent of the controller, until the last day of the month in which the 60-day notice expires. (b) A law enforcement officer or a firefighter who is otherwise eligible for- immediate retirement under section 8336(c) of this title shall be separated from the service on the last day of the month in which he becomes 55 years of age or completes 20 years of service if then over that age. The head of the agency, when in his judgment the public interest so requires, may exempt such an employee from automatic separation under this subsection until that employee becomes 60 years of age. The employing office shall notify the employee in writing of the date of separation at least 60 days in advance thereof. Action to separate the- employee is not effective, without the consent of the-employee, until the last day of the month in which the 60-day notice expires. (c) An employee of the Alaska Railroad in Alaska and an employee who is a citizen of the United States employed on the Isthmus of Panama by the Panama Canal Company or the Canal Zone Government, who becomes 62 years of age and completes 15 years of service in Alaska or on the Isthmus of Panama shall be automatically separated from the service. The separation is effective on the last day of the month in which the employee becomes age 62 or completes 15 years of service in Alaska? or on the Isthmus of Panama if then over that age. The employing office shall notify the employee in writing of the date of separa- tion at least 60 days in advance thereof. Action to separate the employee is not effective,' without the consent of the employee, until the last day of the month in which the 60-day notice expires. (d) The President, by Executive order, may exempt an employee from auto- matic separation under this section when he determines the public interest so requires. (Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 571, amended Pub. L. 92-297, ? 4, May 16, 1972, 86 Stat. 144; Pub. L. 93-350, ? 4, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 355; Pub. L. 95-256, ? 5(c) (1)-(3), Apr. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 191.) ? 8336. Immediate retirement (a) An employee who is separated from the service after becoming 55 years of age and completing 30 years of service is entitled to an annuity. (b) An employee who is separated from the service after becoming 60 years of age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an annuity. (c) An employee who is separated from the service after becoming-50 years of age and completing 20 years of service as a law enforcement officer or fire- fighter, or any combination of such service totaling at least 20 years, is entitled to an annuity. (d) An employee who is separated from the service- (1) involuntarily, except by removal for cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency ; or (2) voluntarily, during a period when the agency in which the employee is serving is undergoing a major reorganization, a major reduction in force, or a major transfer of function, as determined by the Office of Personnel Management, and the employee is serving in a geographic area designated by the Office ; after completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an annuity. (e) An employee who is voluntarily or involuntarily separated from the service, except by removal for cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency, after completing 25 years of service as an air traffic controller or after becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 years of service as an air traffic controller, is entitled to an annuity. (f) An employee who is separated from the service after becoming 62 years of age and completing 5 years of service is entitled to an annuity. 50-236-80-20 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 302 (g) A Member who is separated from the service after becoming 62 years of age and completing 5 years of civilian service or after becoming 60 years of age and completing 10 years of Member service is entitled to an annuity. A Member who is separated from the service after becoming 55 years of age (but before becoming 60 years of age) and completing 30 years of service is enitled to a reduced annuity. A Member who is separated from the service, except by resig- nation or expulsion, after completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of age and (1) completing 20 years of service or (2) serving in 9 Con- gresses is entitled to an annuity. (h) A member of the Senior Executive Service who is removed from the Senior, Executive Service for less than fully successful executive performance (as deter= mined under subchapter II of chapter 43 of this title) after completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an annuity. (i) An annuity or reduced annuity authorized by this section is computed under section 8339 of this title. (Pub. L. 80-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 571, amended Pub. L. 90-83, ? 1(75) , Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 214; Pub. L. 92-297, ? 5, May 16, 1972, 86 Stat. 114; Pub. L. 92-382, ? 1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 539; Pub. L. 93-39, June 12, 1973, 87 Stat. 73; Pub. L. 93-350, ? 5, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 356; Pub. L. 94-183, ? 2 (40) and (41), Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1059; Pub. L. 95-454, Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1147, 1175.) ANNEX III PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERI- CAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES The American Federation of Government Employees appreciates the oppor- tunity to comment on the proposed regulations, "22 . C.FR Chapter II, Agency for International Development, subchapter B-Personnel." Because of the peculiar genesis of these regulations, the many versions in which they have been successively cast, and the exegesis by legal authorities and ultimately by the courts which may be placed on their complex and trou- bled origins, I shall try to simplify the presentation of our concerns as much as possible. For that reason, I should like to comment on the regulations under the following headings : 1. The Date of Submission of the Regulations ; 2. The Regulations as "Law"; 3. The "Best Personnel System" Using Two Personnel Authorities ; 4. Specific Comments on the Regulations as Submitted ; 5. Recommendation that the Congress Disapprove the Regulations. THE DATE OF SUBMISSION OF THE REGULATIONS I note that the regulations purport to have been submitted under Section 401 of Public Law 95-424, 92 Stat. 956, 22 USC, enacted on October 6, 1978. If I am not incorrect, it appears that that law required the proposed regulations to be submitted not later than March 15, 1979. Yet, to my knowledge, they were submitted on, or approximately on, May 1, 1979. It appears that, with respect to these regulations, there may be a legal de- ficiency arising out of that fact alone. This concern appears to be shared by the House of Representatives which has, reportedly, taken some action by amending H.R. 3324 (the 1980-1981 Authorization Bill for the Agency for In- ternational Development and the Peace Corps). seekinz to overcome this de- ficiency by substituting the words "May 1, 1979" for "March 15, 1979". As to whether this action by the House is sufficient to remove the legal handicap, I am unable to judge because H.R. 3324 has not yet received consideration by the Senate and, certainly, it has not been enacted. All of us then, at this hearing, are confronted with certain exceptional legal fictions which appear not to have been anticipated by the Founding Fathers. the drafters of the Constitution, and the judges of the courts. A shadow of illegitimacy falls over the very submission of these regulations even before the Congress has had the opportunity to reflect on them as to their Constitu- tionality or their intrinsic merits. That this shadow may be more than an insubstantial shade of the moment is suggested by a recent action of the Congress in passing. judgment on D.C. Act 2-10 which presented a similar problem in law.`That Act, creating a new person- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 nel system for the District of Columbia, included a series of provisions apparently in conflict with the statute establishing Home Rule for the District of Columbia. Among others, to which the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee took excep- tion, was the inclusion within it of provisions similar to H.R. 10, the Hatch Act amendments passed by the Congress but vetoed by the President. These provisions would have entitled D.C. employees to greater rights to participate in political activities. The legal conflict which the Senate Committee perceived arose from the curious juxtaposition of effective dates. Although. forbidden by the Home Rule Act to legislate in this area, the D.C. Council incorporated H.R. 10 in Act 2-10, on the stipulation that it would not become effective until the Congress lifted the prohibition to legislate.. Even though this was clear and repeatedly re- inforced in the legislation at many points, the Senate Committee insisted that the D.C. Council be convoked in emergency session and repeal this provision, because ,of the failure of the D.C. Council to comply literally/ with the Home Rule Act. The governing date was held by the Committee to be the date of approval of Act 2-1.0 and not the date on which the Congress lifted the prohibition. In our opinion, the regulations submitted to you by the Agency are under a cloud at least as somber as that involved in Act 2-10 of the D.C. Council. Thus, it appears that the chronological date of the 90 days for Congressional consider- ation is highly ambiguous. Will these 90 days be different in the House and Sen- ate? Do the 90 days begin from the date of hearings in each House of Congress? Or do they begin on the date on which the Senate accepts, if it does, the House amendment in H.R. 3324, or the date on which the President signs it? This factor might not have been so important if the provisions of Section 401 of Public Law 95-424 required both Houses to approve the regulations. How- ,ever, the opposite is true. If neither disapproves, the regulations are to have the force of law. Can one House of Congress now deny another House the right to deliberate action? Would that be the case if the Senate did not have the oppor- tunity to review these regulations, or even legislate on H.R. 3324 within 90 days? In any case, we urge that these issues be clarified so that all the interested parties have the same understanding of fact and law. For our part, we can state now that this very circumstance of confusion has seriously disturbed the em- ployees of the Agency for International Development. Quite frankly, they fear that, if this kind of ineptitude awkwardness, and inefficiency accompanies these regulations at the outset, when one would hope for clarity, the future will prob- ::ably bring manipulation, deviousness, and policies based on ad hoc and ad per- srnmem arrangements violating the most fundamental precepts of merit personnel .systems. The prospects for likely appeals to the Office of Personnel Management, to the Special Counsel of the Merit Protection Board and to the courts already -loom large in the visions of these employees. This certainly does not indicate a well-managed Agency with high morale among its managers and employees. THE REGULATIONS 'AS "LAW" Obviously, all Regulations issued pursuant to statutes have the "force and ,effect of law," even if the Regulations do not so state. There is, however, an order of precedence in "law," the highest being the Constitution. Next are statutes en- acted by Congress. Lowest are Regulations, and . Executive Orders. The highest cannot be transgressed by the lower and the Congress cannot change this order and cannot divest itself of its own proper powers, rights, or duties nor the Exec.u- tive arrogate Congressional rights to itself. Statutes can be passed only by the Congress of the United States and no regu- lation can supersede or nullify any statutes unless the Congress has previously specifically modified or repealed those statutes which had the force of law. Otherwise, we would confront the Constitutional issue that the Congress had -permitted the abrogation of its own inalienable rights under the Constitution to legislate and had invested unconstitutionally the Executive Branch with the exercise of these rights by Executive Regulations or Orders. The text of the Section 401 of Public Law 95-424, which is cited in these Regulations, does not reveal such a Congressional intent to set aside the statutes which apply to Federal employees nor does the legislative history indicate that such a possible intent was even considered. Moreover, since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Public Law 95-454 was enacted later than Public Law 95-424, it is the statutory standard by which the courts will determine Congres- s sional intent regarding the legality of any Regulations issued at this time. Con- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 sequently, all the rights of Federal employees which have not been altered by statute are applicable and any regulations issued pursuant to Section 401 of Public Law 95-424 may not transgress civil service law, least of all the provisions of Public Law 95-454. THE BEST PERSONNEL SYSTEM USING TWO PERSONNEL AUTHORITIES As to the best system, It is my view that all personnel who serve in the United, States and who, in the normal course of their assignments will not be serving abroad, should be in the General Schedule. I am pleased to be able to cite in support of my judgment the views of thee- Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy. I recommend that portion of its Report dealing with personnel to you and, enclose a photocopy of pages 171-175, entitled "Improving Departmental Person- nel Management," as an Annex to this Statement. The model suggested by the Commission has become the standard used by all departments and agencies dealing primarily in foreign affairs including the Department of State and the International Communication Agency. As your. know, our union represents both the civil service and the foreign service compo- nents of the latter Agency and we participated actively in the recent Reorganiza- tion Plan which restructured that Agency. On the basis of our own involvement in seeking solutions for personnel prob- lems in agencies having foreign affairs roles and programs, it is our view that all clerical, technical, administrative, professional, policy, and "other" (guards,. etc.) personnel, whose employment will be primarily or exclusively in the United States, should be under the classified civil' service, where positions are based on rank-in-job. These should include those professional employees (lawyers, ac- countants, contract specialists)' whose main function is to deal with domestic counterparts (such as domestic universities, domestic private institutions, con- sulting firms). On the other hand, all those personnel whose sole or primary function will be to deal with foreign governments, more specifically to reside abroad and super- vise programs carried out abroad, should be in the foreign service. We state this on the premise that the exigencies of foreign 'service abroad can be better met, in very many cases, by a rank-in-person personnel system. For the sake of sim- plicity, and uniformity, it is logical to recognize these frequent exigencies and assign persons regularly serving abroad to a specialized foreign service which has readily available special authorizations and appropriations to meet these exigent needs. Both for rotational reasons, and to assure their proper influence on the policies. both substantive and personnel, of the Agency, adequate positions in the United States should be reserved for foreign service personnel. It has been suggested by some persons that all "policy" positions should be in the foreign service because the Agency is involved in foreign operations. Al- though this attitude may appear to be based on self-evident principles, I should like to point out that such.a claim,;bas?not been recognized for selecting even-the- Secretary of State and that the recent Administrators of the Agency, the persons in its top policy making positions, seem not to have emerged from the foreign service of that Agency. Instead, it appears, the intention in appointing and con- firming the A.I.D. Administrator was to assure that U.S. policies, the wills of the Congress and of the President, were. carried out in the administration of these aid programs.. - As to other senior "policy" positions, I should like to inouire whether the re- cent authorities established under Public Law.95-454, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, for the "rank-in-person" and "policy related" Senior Executive Serv- ice'appear to be totally inadequate for the needs of "policy making" in the Agency and whether there is a real need to establish a'novel and unprecedented Foreign Senior Executive 'Service to discharge these functions. I raise this point because it has been held by legal counsel of the Civil Service Commission, now"the Office of Personnel Management, that every Department head, even now, has the basic legal right to "order the transfer of any Federal employee, whether civil service; excepted service, foreign service, or any other service, anywhere in" the world. Of course, the"transfer must be reasonable and must not be discriminatory or capricious or serve ulterior purposes. For the vast majority of Federal employees. Department heads do not exercise these rights because they can achieve their personnel missions' more easily and less ex- pensively by other means, such as voluntary reassignments or local hire or tem- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 porary duty or detached service assignments. However, in those cases where Departments need, in fulfillment of their missions, to transfer personnel to.other geographic locations, including service abroad (as in the case of various auditors or inspectors, the immigration service, the customs service), they do so under the civil service authorities made known in the job descriptions of their em- ployees or posted as a condition of employment. Just as in the foreign service, civil service employees may refuse to serve, of course, in which case, if insub- ordinate, they can be reprimanded, disciplined, or terminated. Consequently, it is a serious misstatement that the authority to assign or transfer personnel abroad resides only in the foreign service. Regarding the best personnel system, I should like to reiterate that all posi- tions, clerical, technical, administrative, professional, policy making and "other," when the function will be primarily to discharge duties in the United States, should be under the authorities established in Title V of the Federal Statutes, governing the Civil Service in its various denominations (Senior Executive Serv- ice, Excepted Service, Classified and Competitve General Schedule and Prevailing Wage Rate). All functions which will be discharged by regular assignments nbroad should be in the foreign service, as they are in the Department of State and the International Communication Agency, with positions reserved in Wash- ington, D.C., for foreign service personnel on rotational assignment in the United States. All policy making positions requiring explicit foreign service experience should of course be reserved to experienced foreign service personnel, but all senior policy positions which do not require primary foreign service experience should be in the Senior Executive Service under Subchaper II of Title V, United States Code, since these personnel can be required to go anywhere when needed. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE REGULATIONS AS SUBMITTED Our first observation is that the Regulations do not conform to the instructions In Section 401 of Public Law 95-424. This is simply a statement of fact, of course, because we do not believe that that passage is legally sufficient to bring into being its purpose. Consequently, for the rest of this testimony, I shall set aside the legal issues and discuss,the personnel proposals solely in terms of merit. Earlier, in describing the "best" system I had made the point, and adduced the views of others, to the effect that sufficient positions should he reserved to accommodate foreign service personnel on rotation. This is a very different issue from designating specific positions; that is, reserving them exclusively for for- ~eign service personnel. This makes for inflexibility, an inflexibility which harms both management and employees. First, such designation is in effect a further affirmative action criteron in its worst form, the quota system. Second, it is an administratively determined affirmative action criterion which takes in fact precedence over all the statutory affirmative actions mandated by Congress, including Veterans Preference, laws against discrimination because of sex, race, or national origin. Thirdly, the regulations violate the most important purpose of Section 401- to get personnel overseas. The regulations submitted by the Agency do the re- verse. They will mandate an increase in the number of foreign service per- sonnel in Washington, D.C. All the correspondence and comments which we have read indicate that currently there are 470 foreign service personnel in Washington whereas, under the Regulations, there will be eventually nearly 800, 700 in designated positions and another 100 in General Schedule positions. I note that, for some reason, the Agency's personnel tables seek to obscure this eventual development by limiting the identified foreign service positions to a time span of five years. We regret this obfuscation, because a careful read- ing reveals that 700 positions will be "designated" and another 100 positions will, in fact, be "reserved" for foreign service personnel within the General Schedule grades. I have already stated that we believe it is illegal to impose conditions by reg- ulation which violate rights granted by statute. We believe such illegal situa- tions will be created in every case where civil service personnel will be told they must join the foreign service or will be denied the normal promotions in the career ladders in which they are situated. The mere fact that a position in a higher grade has been "designated" foreign service will not, in our opinion, he a barrier to the civil servant obtaining redress and in fact obtaining the promotion. We are sure that the rights of Veterans, of women, of minorities, will not be foreclosed by any such devious administrative action. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Thus, in the end, it appears that the regulations will collapse as soon as they are tested by the rule of statute. We hope, that, for the sake of the interim morale and efficiency of the Agency, the Congress will not permit such an anguished demise of proposals whose: birth have all the characteristics not only of illegitimacy but unviability. RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CONGRESS DISAPPROVE THE REGULATION For all the reasons which we have cited, I recommend that Congress din approve these regulations as inconsistent with the requirements of Section. 401, inconsistent with Constitutional criterion, violative of statutes, and un- worthy in their conception and formulation, as measured by the standards of' a merit personnel system. In their place, we recommend that the Congress draft a new set of statutes. applicable to, all Foreign Affairs Agencies, including the Department of State, the 'International, Cominunication Agency, and -the Agency for International Development. Such a Congressional initiative would provide viability and legitimacy to, the sound purpose for which Section 401 was written-to get foreign service personnel abroad as quickly and as long as possible. In conclusion, I should like to state once again our appreciation for the Op- portunity to comment and to assure you that we will cooperate with the Con- gress to the fullest extent possible in seeking new, better legislation for the, personnel of all the foreign affairs agencies. The FSO in our view, though now recruited as a generalist, becomes potentially a specialist in conducting bilateral relations. In today's world, he is not a "for- eign affairs generalist" in the sense of seeing national policies in Presidential' and Secretarian perspectives. There are too many streams of consideration and competences which, must be, integrated with bilateral competence to produce foreign policy in a world where multilateral issues will increasingly predominate. However, the FSO should have the opportunity to earn the broader designation. by solid achievement in many subject matter areas, by reaching out to broaden himself through assignments and training and by competing with others within and outside the Departments. In one area in particular the FSO must intensify his efforts and develop his talents : the rigor and depth of foreign assessment. Some analysis and assessment is now performed in connection with political, economic, military, and tech- nological reporting. But studies for this Commission and others indicate that present reporting, while voluminous, too often focuses on description of events and conversations and too little upon the meaning and longer-term possibilities- In Chapter 9 we have discussed in considerable length the nature of this assess- ment role. An increase in analysis and in the ability to explore and present bold policy and program options does not come simply by willing it at the Secretary's level. It can only be the product of a broad, well-conceived strategy which includes recruiting, developing, promoting and encouraging people who are at home in this task. If we want innovators and free systematic exploration of ideas, man- agement must set a new framework and behave in a way which demonstrates its commitment. The Commission recommends that : The Foreign Service should be recruited, trained, and sized to its historic mis- sion-that of representing U.S. interests in foreign countries. This requires people- willing to and psychologically attuned to serve in alien and difficult situation.s- a7nd who have strong basic competence in area studies and language. A major change in emphasis, however, should be directed toward improvement in rigorous short and longer term assessments of U.S. interests and analytic- reporting. The officers should be broadened by experience and training for the new assess- ment emphasis, particularly in the area of economics. Improving Departmental Personnel Management.-The problems of personnel management, whether those of the functional bureaus or the Foreign Service, are symptoms of a more fundamental problem. The top management of State is- of necessity so policy and externally oriented that it has little time for sustained' attention to internal management. All Secretaries of State have shown interest in management and a desire to make lasting improvements in the working of the Department. But sustained attention to internal management strategy and implementation has been lacking since the era of Marshall and Acheson. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Past studies have focused on the number two man in the Department, now the Deputy Secretary. Many have felt be should play the role of "Mr. Inside," and preeminently concern himself with Departmental management. As the alter ego of the Secretary, however, he faces heavy policy pressures. He serves as Acting Secretary when the Secretary is out of the country. He is on tap with the White. House and bears a large share of the burden of Congressional testimony. He is also absorbed in interagency problems, particularly with Defense. This problem is frequently exacerbated by fuzzy delineation of duties between the Secretary and his Deputy. The "one-two relationship" is always difficult, even with experi- enced managers involved. The greatest need is to develop a clear Secretarial view in the management of the Department. We conclude that it is feasible and logical to use the Deputy Under Secretary as the major vehicle for meeting this need. There should be a clear Presidential and Secretarial charter as to what is to be done. The individual selected for this position must have the management and foreign policy stature and-closeness to the Secretary to do the job; there must be adequate arrange- ments for reporting to the Secretary through the Deputy and for keeping abreast of the evolving substance of foreign policy. It is important to emphasize that the Secretary remains responsible for the management of the Department and its personnel and that the Deputy Under Secretary is acting for him. Also, personnel management should be coupled with budget management under the Deputy Under Secretary for Management. The combination of budget and personnel provides the necessary strength to plan and carry out this difficult assignment. The vacuum in consistent management direction from the top has been filled by the Foreign Service, the continuing body which cares most. Today, it dominates the Department through the personnel management function. The assignment process is of course. a critical element in this control. 'The'chief'of personnel in the State' Department is the Director General of the Foreign Service, who by law, must be a Foreign Service Officer. The rotation in the job is high; there have been 13 Directors General in 28 years. The person with the title of "Director of Personnel" reports to the Director General and is also an FSO. Moreover, the four Deputy Directors of Personnel heading the- major personnel functions are FSOs, as are most of the other major sub- ordinate jobs in the personnel area. This condition makes for a tendency to visualize personnel policy for the, Department in terms of the needs and aspirations of the Foreign Service Corps. It results in high turnover and lack of professionalism in personnel activities. It must be changed if the Department wants to develop a professional personnel function which meets in optimum fashion its needs for special competence and', continuity. The Board of the Foreign Service is advisory to the Secretary of State on procedures and policies related to administration of the Foreign Service. It is established by Executive Order and all functions are vested in the Secretary. The Board is composed of four officials of State, one representative each from AID. USIA. Commerce, Labor and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. OMB has observer status. The current chairman is the Deputy Secretary. In light of the proposals herein to strengthen Departmental personnel man- agement, the role, functions and membership of the Board of the Foreign Service should be renewed. Its main continuity function might be to advise- the Secretary on cross-agency aspects of overseas representation and reporting- by the Foreign Service. Perhaps it should be given it wider role in advising on executive development and coss-agency exchange and training. The Commission recommends that : Responsibility for Department-wide personnel management functions should" be centered in the Deputy Under Secretary for Management, who should be made Under Secretary. A modern, professional personnel function should be established at the De- partment level, with a Director reporting to the Under Secretary for Manage- ment. His task would be to see that viable careers are developed within all' personnel categories and that all systems work to the full benefit of the Department. The Director General of the Foreign Service should report to the Director of Personnel and should focus upon the administration of the high mobility officer- component (FSOs) within prescribed Departmental policy. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 The Board of the Foreign Service should be reviewed and reoriented to a new cross-agency mission as discussed- above. The Under Secretary for Management should lead the review and be designated Chairman of the reconstituted board. The Under Secretary for Management should be responsible for developing, .for the Secretary's approval, an annual Department manpower plan as a vehicle for determining the needs for, and deployment of people and skills-over 3-5 years. The Policy Planning Staff should play a key role in developing for the Secretary's approval basic guidance as to the policy directions, shifts in deploy- ment emphasis at overseas posts, and critical competences to be acquired. Executive Department.-The Department needs a strong extensive develop- ment program to produce the pool of career executives to fulfill its policy leader- ship role. The program should be based upon the following key principles : All personnel in all systems in the Department should have the opportunity to rise to the top career jobs in Washington and overseas based upon merit .and performance. The GS, FSR/U, FSO, and FSS, and the major career ladders.create within each, would be considered "feeder.systenrs" leading to a Foreign Affairs Execu- tive Service at the top (GS-16 and FSO/R, 0-2,and above). Jobs in the Executive Service, as designated by the Secretary, would be filled, when vacant by a special "selection-in" process involving full review of all poten- tial candidates and recommendations by line managers and the proposed Execu- tive Development Staff. Key "stepping-stone" jobs throughout the Department would be identified and used for career development purposes for candidates from all systems. Supervisors at home and abroad would be made responsible for identifying and developing candidates with executive potential, and the supervisors would be ,evaluated on the performance in this score. The responsibility for administering State's Executive Development Program on behalf of the Secretary should be placed on the Under Secretary for Manage- ment. Based upon the experience in industry, a professional Executive Develop- ment Staff should be established reporting directly to the Under Secretary and :separate from the Department's regular personnel activities. This staff, which might number 10-12, would work with the Director of Personnel and other Departmental officials in performing the following functions : Knowing in depth the. best promotion candidates in all systems in the grades just below the executive level who might be qualified for designated jobs : Recommending to the Secretary candidates for designated executive job ,openings ; Developing overall policy and procedures for an executive manpower system ; Assisting units of State in defining executive jobs accurately and in developing annual executive manpower reviews; and Monitoring the operation of the program from the perspectives of the Secretary. The Executive Development Staff must be highly competent, objective profes- sionals, and perceived as such throughout the organization. They are not king- makers. Their recommendations on filling designated executive jobs, however, would supplement those of Department managers and would be based upon inde- pendent and extensive investigations, including interviews with the candidates, their subordinates, their peers, and their supervisors. This procedure would pro- vide the Secretary with a new viewpoint in the selection of executive talent. We further believe that the executive search, and development process in State is so important that it should look beyond the confines of the Department. State's Executive Development Staff should be aware of high potential candidates, for the Executive Service from other agencies and from outside the Government. This staff should also actively create and monitor interagency assignments and private sector exchanges for State personnel which contribute to the broadening of experience. Presidential appointments to key Departmental posts including ambassadors would continue to be made from the White House. It is assumed, however, that. the President would build his selection process,on State's Executive Development Program and would use the pool of career executive talent to a large extent in making such appointments. The Commission recommends that: The Under Secretary for Management should establish an Executive Develop- 'snent Program administered by a professional staff reporting directly to him (outside but related to regular Personnel functions). Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Promotions to designated executive jobs (largely FSO-2 and GS-16 and above) should be subject to special procedures of a Foreign Affairs Executive Service (FAES). Candidates would be "selected in" to executive jobs in the FAES by the Secretary on the basis of recommendations from line managers and the emecu- tive development staff. The purpose of the Executive Development program would be to find the best talent from all categories within the Department based on the Secretary's. defined needs. It should be part of a community-wide approach. Civil No. 3141-71 (Filed, June 12, 1973, James F. Davey, Clerk) AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFSj- v. WILLIAM P. ROGERS, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS Memorandum and Order This action is before the Court on the cross motions of the parties for summary judgment. Hearing on the motions was held on April 27, 1973. Upon considera- tion of the complaint and answer, the motions, the affidavits, exhibits and' statements of material facts not in dispute filed herein as well as the memoranda and oral argument of counsel heard in open court, and the entire record in this cause the Court concludes that the motion of plaintiffs must be granted in part and denied in part, and that defendants' motion must be denied. The findings of fact and conclusions of law which led to this determination follow. A. The Parties Plaintiff, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is a na- tional union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. It represents employees of various agencies of the Federal government pursuant to Executive Order No. 11491, "Labor-Management Relations in the Federal Service," 34 Fed. Reg. 17605 (1969). Plaintiff Local 1812, AFGE, has been accorded exclusive recognition under the said Executive Order to represent "all non-supervisory domestic General' Schedule (GS and GG) and Wage System [Civil Service]" employees in the United States Information Agency (USIA). Plaintiff Local 1534, AFGE, has been accorded exclusive recognition under the said Executive Order to represent non-supervisory Civil Service employees in the Publishing and Reproduction Division of the Department of State, as well as language instructors at the- Foreign Service Institute, Department of State. Intervenor plaintiffs Josephine C. Campbell, Bruce N. Gregory and Rose F. Kobylinski are Civil Service employees of USIA. Intervenor plaintiffs William P. O'Brien and Nancy R. Schroeder are Civil Service employees of the Depart- ment of State." Defendant William P. Rogers is the Secretary of State, charged with the re- sponsibility of supervising and directing the affairs of the Department of State,. including the supervision and direction of the activities of the personnel of the. Department, both Civil Service and Foreign Service. 1None of the named plaintiffs represent personnel of the Foreign Service under the provisions of Executive Order 11636. governing representation of Foreign 'Service person- nel. Foreign Service personnel of both the Department of State and the United States Information Agency are exclusively represented by the American Foreign Service Associa- tion. which is not a party to this action. The standing of the plaintiffs is discussed below at p. 9. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Defendant James Keogh is the Director of the USIA. He is charged with re- sponsibility for supervising and ,directing the affairs of that agency, including the supervision and direction of the activities of the personnel of the agency, 'both Civil Service personnel and personnel of the Foreign Service. Defendants are responsible in their respective agencies for the conduct of Foreign Affairs Specialist Corps (FAS) programs challenged in this action. B. The FAS Programs On February 16, 1971, the Department of State issued a document styled "Management Reform Bulletin" which purported to establish a new "Unified Personnel System" in State to be known as "The Foreign Affairs Specialist (FAS) Corps."a The bulletin stated that the Foreign Affairs Specialist Corps was to parallel and complement the Foreign Service Officer Corps. State's em- ployees were advised that "Its establishment grows out of the conclusions of . Task Forces and earlier management study groups that a unified Foreign Service personnel system would give the Department the advantage of greater management flexibility."' The Management Reform Bulletin stated further that, with exceptions not here relevant, all existing Foreign Service and Civil Service officer positions in State. whether located in the United States or overseas, had already redesignated '"as either FSO [Foreign Service Officer] or FSRU (FAS) ' [Foreign Service Reserve Unlimited, (Foreign Affairs Specialist)], "i.e., as positions suitable for staffing by personnel from the Foreign Service personnel system by the provisions of the Foreign Service Act, as amended (Title 22 U.S.C. ? 801 et seq.) The new FSO and FSRU (FAS) system is distinct from the Civil Service sys- tem established and maintained pursuant to the various Civil Service laws con- tained in Title 5 of the United States Code. Accordingly, the Department notified all of its Civil Service officer employees and all of its Foreign Service Reserve Officers and Foreign Service Staff Officers that "under the authority of Public Law 90-494, (22 U.S.C. Section 922-32) State would immediately accept applications for conversion of all such employees to the new Foreign Affairs Specialist Corps," the applicant in each case to be removed upon approval of his or her application, from their existing employment categories in either the Civil Service or the Foreign Service to "FSRU (FAS) or PSO." The Management Reform Bulletin continued : "(i) Civil Service applicants for conversion, not previously subject to service abroad in their Civil Service positions now resdesignated "FAS," would continue to be exempt in most cases from service abroad after conversion to the Foreign Service ; "(ii) Civil Service applicants for conversion, not theretofore subject to "selec- tion out" procedures of the Foreign Service Act (22 U.S.C. ? 1003, et seq.), would upon conversion to the Foreign Service, be "exempted from selection-out" for periods up to 10 years or until their first promotion after conversion ; and "(iii) Civil Service applicants for conversion would, upon conversion to the Foreign Service, "become eligible for earlier retirement at a slightly higher annuity under the Foreign Service Retirement System." The Reform Bulletin made it clear that Civil Service employees who failed to apply for conversion or who were ineligible for conversion under the terms and conditions of the new FAS program, would gradually find deminished-opportu- nities-for future promotion. In this regard, the bulletin stated : "As the plan for implementation of a Foreign Affairs Specialist Corps pro- gresses, however, it must be expected that promotional opportunities for those On July 1. 1971. the Director of the USIA. actin7 on the same legal authority as the Secretary of State established a new FAS Corps in TJSIA which was patterned in all sub- stantial aspects on the State Department program. The discussion which follows is accord- ing1v directed at both programs. P I It is undisputed that at numerous. times in the. past the implementation of a 'unified personnel structure at the Department of State has been urged by various and distinguished groups charged with the task of exploring ways to improve the efficiency of that depart- ment. The most comprehensive and detailed of such studies were included in the reports of the Hoover Commission of 1949. the Rowe. Ramsneck, DeCourcey Committee of 1950, the Wriston Committee of 197i4 and the Herter Committee of 1962. ? ?FAS" (Foreign Affairs Specialist) is it creature of defendants making. It is only a program and not a personnel des+enation found in the Foreign Service Act as are FSO (Foreign Service Officer) and FSRTJ (Foreign Service Reserve With Unlimited Tennr). FSRU Is the personnel category utilized by defendants to create and execute the FAS program. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 (Civil Service employees] remaining in positions designated for FSO or FAS staffing are bound to decrease * * *" Those who would be ineligible for transfer to the new FAS Corps included : (i) Applicants unable to obtain the necessary "medical clearance" from the Department's Medical Director ; (ii) Applicants who were not citizens of the United States "for at least 5 years" or who did not possess "3 years of satisfactory service with the Department ;" (iii) All applicants who were over certain specified ages and; (iv) All applicants under 59 years of age who failed to convert by December 21, 1973." The bulletin further indicated that FAS personnel would normally be expected to spend some time abroad and would be "encouraged to acquire some foreign language proficiency." Because of the likelihood of overseas duty, members of their family would also be required to obtain "medical clearance". from the Department's Medical Director. In 1971 when State and USIA announced their intentions to proceed admin- istratively a with the creation of the above described unified Foreign Affairs personnel systems in their respective agencies, their programs, reduced to essen- tials, consisted of three elements: viz (1) the designation of officer-level posi- tions within the Department of State and USIA for future staffing by Foreign Service personnel; (2) the assignment of Foreign Service personnel to such designated positions and (3) the appointment of present Civil Service and For- ,eign Service personnel as Foreign Service Reserve officers with unlimited tenure. To evaluate the effect of the personnel shifts inherent in the programs it must be kept in mind that the Foreign Service personnel system is administered exclusively by top grade State Department and USIA management officials (22 U.S.C.?? 811a, 821, 826; Executive Orders 1.0477, 10522). These officials are au- thorized to keep "efficiency records" of all employees in the Foreign Service and they have unfettered discretion to decide which employees should be promoted ,and which should be subject to "selection out" (22 U.S.C. ?? 991, 993) for failure to achieve promotion within,time periods devised and enforced by their superiors. (22 U.S.C. ? 1003) The Foreign Service system is oriented only toward personnel classification by grade and persons in a particular grade may be assigned to wherever the ,Secretary or Director determines they will be most effective. 'Civil Service employees on the other hand are appointed to their positions in accordance with Examination, Selection, Appointment and Placement laws administered by the Civil Service Commission (5 U.S.C. ? 3301 et seq.). They hold their positions subject to the protections afforded by the Veterans' Prefer- ence Act (5 U.S.C. ?? 3309-3313, 3363, 3501-3504, 7511-12 and 7701). the Adverse Action statutes (5 U.S.C. ? 5115 et seq.). They are promoted under the Civil ,Service Merit System and the Performance Ratings Act (5 U.S.C. ? 4301 et ,seq.)-all of which are subject to the overall jurisdiction and administration of the Civil Service Commission. If the three-part program outlined above is put into, effect the comprehensive hoped-for result will be that all "officer" positions will ultimately be either FSO's or FAS's at State and FSIO's or FAS's at USIA. For the purposes of the For- eign Service Act, all FAS's will be in the category of FSRU, and the positions they fill at'State and USIA will no longer be included in the Civil Service System. The defendants will be vested with broader discretion and greater flexibility in -the management of personnel within the State Department and USIA by elimi- nating virtually all Civil Service "officer" grade positions. As a practical matter, personnel transferring from the Civil Service to the Foreign Service will find that the statutory guarantees which adhered to the positions they held previously have disappeared with the change. The gain by 'their superiors of considerable flexibility in discharging their executive functions will be accompanied by diminution in the job security of the Civil Service trans- ferees. The effect on the promotional opportunities of those remaining in the 'Civil Service has been noted above. It is thus evident that the new FAS programs, if put into operation by defend- ants in the manner just described will directly affect and will continue to affect r An earlier attemnt to accomnlish essentially the same result legislatively in 1905 filed when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee failed to renort out the so-called "Hays Rill" after strenuous objection by such groups as the AFGE. the Government Employees Council, the AFL-Clfi, the American Legion and the Veterans' of Foreign Wnre. The me"sure initiated by Congressman Wayne Hays of Ohio had been approved by the House -of Representatives on 'September 9, 1965. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 thousands of employees of State and USIA who hold Civil Service positions typical, ,of those found throughout the Executive Branch. II. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS For the purposes of this discussion the Court accepts defendants position that the creation of a unified personnel system will culminate in heightened morale, and more efficient operations of State and USIA. However, we must still deter- mine whether the specific steps they propose to take to achieve that added effi- ciency violate the laws under which State and USIA operate. A. Standing Earlier in these proceedings the defendants challenged plaintiff AFGE's stand- ing to bring this action. On February 16, 1973, the Court, by oral ruling, denied' defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing. In the interest of formulat- ing an adequate record, the Court deems it expedient at this time to detail its% reasons for that order. It is axiomatic that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members in a proceeding for judicial review, NAACP v.' Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963). Furthermore, it is established in this circuit that a union composed of federal employee members has standing to sue on behalf of those members when they are injured or threatened with injury by the federal agency which employs them, Lodge 1858, AFGE v. Paine, 436 F.2d 882 (D.C.C.A. 1970) United, Federation of Postal Clerks v. Watson, 409 F.2d 462 (D.C.C.A. 1969). If there, were any question that organizations in the position of plaintiff AFGE may have- standing to sue on behalf of aggrieved members it was conclusively answered in the affirmative by Sierra Club v. Morton, 40 U.S. 727 (1972). Because AFGE' brings this action in its representative capacity, the Court looks only to the ques- tion of whether the members it represents are "injured" or "aggrieved" by the- proposed agency' action of the defendants iii instituting the new FAS program. Association of Data Processing Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970).' On the question of the individual's standing the Court notes that since "[E]ach case turns to the nature of the parties, the grievances and the statutory provi- sions involved * * *," the Court must determine de nova whether individual AFGE members employed by the Department of State and USIA have standing ,to complain that the defendants have acted illegally and have "arbitrarily disregarded [their] statutory mandate" to administer provisions of the Foreign Service Act. Curran v. Laird, 420 F.2d 122, 125 (D.C.C.A:1969). The entire thrust of the personnel programs under consideration is toward the concept of an or- derly personnel system characterized by statutorily defined rights to pay, allow- ances, retirement benefits and to a lesser extent, promotional opportunities and job security. It follows that the institution of a pervasive personnel program- some aspect of which may be illegal-in the two agencies may do violence to that- concept, and since the interests of. the complainants in the maintenance of an orderly personnel regime are arguably within the zone of interests to be pro- tected by the statutes in question, they have standing to bring this action. Asso- ciation of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, supra, at 155. See also Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968). The Court is persuaded that their interest is- such that it ensures that the dispute they seek to adjudicate will continue to be. presented in an.adversary context and in a form historically viewed as eapahle- of judicial resolution. Sierra Club v. Morton, supra. "[A] person aggrieved in fact may * * * [avail himself of] * * * a broad conception that congress is. `hospitable' to the maintenance of complaints' against officials charged with dis- regarding its substantive mandate." Curran v. Laird. supra, 126. Sec also, 5 U.S.C. ? 702; Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966 80 Stat. 392. B. Merits There is no specific statutory authorization for the establishment of the "FAS personnel program at either USIA or the State Department. As was noted earlier- (note 2 supra) "FAS" is merely an acronym for a personnel program=it is not an individual personnel designation. The Court considers the standing-of the plaintiff union only in terms of its representa- tive capacity and does not address the problem of whether or not the union itself has such a stake in the outcome as to enable it to bring this action on its own behalf. Since only the- union's representation of the individuals is pertinent to this discussion the anestion of whether the plaintiff AFGE locals remain recognized bargaining agents for affected em- ployees is not relevant to the Court's conclusion. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Of course the fact that a program has not been specifically authorized by stat- Lite does not necessarily mean that it is forbidden. There is no law against the use of imagination by the heads of executive departments in discharging their responsibilities. But if and when their imagination, no matter how inspired, carries them outside the boundaries of their statutory authority, an injunction will lie. As was noted above at p. 6 the FAS program is to be implemented through a three-step procedure. We examine each step in light of the statutory provisions :bearing thereon. (1) The designation of officer level positions within the Department of State -and USIA for future staffing by Foreign Service Personnel. 22 U.S.C. Section 886(b) (Section 441(b) of the Foreign Service Act) reads ..as follows: "(b) Under such regulations as he may prescribe the Secretary may, notwith- standing the provisions of Chapter 51 and Subchapter III of Chapter 53 of Title 5, classify positions in or under the Department which he designates as Foreign Service Officer positions to be occupied by officers and employees of the Service, :,a nd establish such positions in -relation to the classes established by Sections 867, 869 and 870 of this title.? This section clearly deals with the classification of positions, not the status of individuals. If a position is presently occupied by an individual who is part of the Civil Service personnel system, then nothing in Section 886(b) directly affects the incumbent's rights guaranteed under Title 5. Defendants agree with this and specifically include in their memoranda a portion of the House Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs Report which interpreted this section as follows : "When a position, subject to the Classification Act of 1949 (i.e. Title 5) is filled by a person other than an officer of the Foreign Service, it would con- tinue to be classified in accordance with the provisions of the Classification - Act. Classification under the provisions of this section would be inoperative until such position is filled by,. a Foreign Service. Officer." B Since the redesignation of positions envisaged by the defendants' programs ap- plies only to future staffing-not to present personnel designation-there is no limitation in Section 886(b) which precludes such action. Moreover, despite plaintiffs' position that such redesignation may be arbitrary and capricious in some instances (i.e. those where personnel qualified for certain positions might gain no ? advantage from overseas assignment and inclusion in the. Foreign Service), the administrative advantages to be gained from implementation of a. unified Foreign Service personnel system have..been amply spread upon the record and not effectively. rebutted. Accordingly,, the . Court finds as a matter -of law that the redesignation of. officer level positions in the. Department of -State and the USIA for future staffing. by. Foreign' Service and Foreign Serv- "ice Information personnel is a reasonable exercise of the defendants' statutory powers and expressly permitted by 22 U.S.C. 886(b) .(Sec. 441(b)). (2) The assignment of Foreign Service Personnel to positions redesignated -under 22 U.S.C. 886(b). . We touch only briefly on this aspect of the. proposed FAS Program, because it is clear from the statutory, language throughout the Foreign Service Act that ? the Secretary of State and the Director, of USIA have unusually broad powers to assign Foreign Service Personnel throughout the. government. As one point the statute reads : "Any officer or employee of the Service may in the discretion of the-Secretary. be assigned or detailed for duty in any government agency for a period of not -more than four years * * *" B Elsewhere it indicates that reserve officers may be "* * * assigned to a class and not to a particular post, and such an officer -may be assigned to posts and may be transferred from one post to another by order of the Secretary as the interests of the Service may require." 10 Furthermore the legislative history of the 1960 Amendment to the Foreign Service Act, Pub. L. 86-723, indicates that it was prepared in conjunction with 'These provisions are also applicable to, USIA. The statutory references to Title 5 concern the Civil Service classification law. Sections 867. 869 and 870 establish the cate- gories of Foreign Service Officers. Foreign Service Reserve Officers and Foreign Service Staff Officers, respectively. B H. Rep. No. 2104, Foreign Service Act Amendments of '1960, Committee on Foreign Affairs. 86h Cong., 2d Sess.,.pp. 16-17. F 22 U.S.C. Sec.'961. (a). 1022 U.S:C. Sec. 923. The Court notes in passing that, "reserve" officers would make up -the FAS program corps. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 existing broad redesignation power vested in the Secretary and Director by 22 U.S.C. 886 discussed, supra.' Accordingly, this second step to implement the FAS Program is within the statutory power of the defendants. Furthermore, since the Court has found the goal of defendants to be a reasonable one, there are no grounds for enjoining continuation of this activity. (3) The appointment of present Civil Service and Foreign Service personnel as Foreign Service Reserve Officers with Unlimited Tenure. The designation Foreign Service Reserve Officer with Unlimited Tenure (FSRU) is authorized by 22 U.S.C. Sec. 929 which reads : (a) Any officer appointed as a Foreign Service Reserve Officer after August 20, 1968 may serve as such for no longer than five years. During such period (no sooner than the expiration of the third year but no later than the expiration of the fifth year) such Foreign Service Reserve Officer shall be appointed as a Foreign Service Officer, Foreign Service Information Officer, Foreign Service Reserve Officer with Unlimited Tenure, Foreign Service Staff Officer, or shall be terminated as a Foreign Service Reserve Officer." Pub. L. 90-494. The language of this provision yields only one interpretation, viz, that only Foreign Service Reserve Officers with more than three but less than five years in the Foreign Service Reserve can be made Foreign Service Reserve Officers with Unlimited Tenure. Defendants urge that the provision should be interpreted to permit them to appoint directly to the FSRU category any and all personnel whether Civil Serv- ice or Foreign Service with three years satisfactory service and who have been citizens of the United States for five years. Their argument is that the Congres- sional "purpose" behind the enactment of Section 929 would be frustrated by a narrower interpretation ; i.e. a requirement of three years service as a Foreign Service Reserve Officer before a person becomes eligible for FSRU appointment. They cite the example of a hypothetical qualified regular Foreign Service officer who for reasons of his own determines that he would rather become part of the new FAS program, thus necessitating his change from FSO to FSRU status. It would be senseless, they argue, to require such a person to go through the three- year "initiation period" before according him FSRU status. This may well be so. But the short answer, is that Section 929 was not written to facilitate a FAS program. Section 929 was. designed simply to afford the. Sec- retary and the Director the power to'offer some; degree of security to those who had joined the Foreign Service Reserve." It may well be wise to permit free transfers of personnel from FSO designa- tion to FSRU designation; and it may also be advisable to permit Civil Service personnel with a record of long and capable service and who otherwise meet statutory requirements to move immediately into the FSRU category. However, at the present time, a statutory basis for such movement does not exist. The Court will.not.,modify statutory language by construction to achieve a goal the Congress did not contemplate or seek to accomplish through legislation. The Court -therefore finds as a matter of law that the defendants' appointment of any personnel, other than those who have served as Foreign Service Reserves for three years as Foreign Service Reserve Officers with Unlimited Tenure is action which lies outside the authority of the defendants as defined by 22 U.S.C. 929 (a). 11 Sections 961(c) and 886(b) were part of the same statutory scheme. (Pub. L. 86-723). The former gave the Secretary broad power to reassign his Foreign Service personnel while the latter gave him equally broad power to redesignate positions within the Department to conform with such reassignment. The need for sweeping redesignation power stemmed ill part from the earlier practice of paying a "salary differential" to Foreign Service person- nel of a relatively low paying grade who had been assigned to a Classification Act position carrying a higher salary. The "differential" was the difference between the two amounts. It is clear that Congress intended to vest the Secretary with broad powers to determine how best to use his ForeignService Officer corps and that these two sections were intended as concurrent steps giving him greater flexibility in utilizing that power. 32 Previously these personnel were permitted to remain in this status for only five years. They could be reappointed to a term only if they were not regularly employed by the State Department and the head of the agency regularly employing them approved, but thereafter they could be reappointed further only after a minimum of one year in another capacity. 22 U.S.C. 922, 927. 22 U.S.C. ? 931. also relied upon by the defendants. confers no additional power to make FSRU appo'ntments. It permits appointment to FSRU status only of Foreign Service Reserve officers with three years service "as such." (emphasis added) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 315 III. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER The foregoing constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and, in the light thereof, it is this 12th day of June 1973. ORDERED that the defendants, the Secretary of State and Director of the USIA, their officers, agents, employees and attorney be and hereby are permanently restrained and enjoined from offering or extending appointments to the Foreign Service Reserve with Unlimited Tenure category created by Pub. L. 90-494 (22 U.S.C. 922-32) to any but Foreign Service Reserve Officers possessed of at least three years of continuous satisfactory service in that capacity only; and it is further ORDERED that the Secretary of State and the Director of the USIA their officers, agents, employees and attorneys shall, and hereby are directed to take any and all necessary steps to rescind in a fair and equitable manner and without undue delay any actions heretofore taken to offer or extend Foreign Service Reserve with Unlimited Tenure appointments under the provisions of Pub. L. 90-494 (22 U.S.C. 922-32) to any employees of the two agencies who were not, when appointed to the FSRU category, Foreign Service Reserve Officers with at least three years of continuous, satisfactory service in that category ; and it is further ORDERED that in all other respects the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, and that the preliminary injunction heretofore granted by the Court prohibiting the con- tinued implementation of the FAS except as indicated above is dissolved. , Judge. Counsel: Edward L. Merrigan, Smathers & Merrigan, Washington, D.C., attorney for plaintiffs. Harold H. Titus, Jr. U.S. Attorney, Michael A. Katz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Courthouse, Washington, D.C., attorney for defendants. Civil Action No. - Filed April 30, 1975 LOCAL 1812, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE), c/o U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; LOCAL 1534, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE), 21ST AND C STREETS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE), 1325 MASSACHU- SETTS AVENUE, NW., WASHINGTON, D.C.; BRUCE N. GREGORY, SILVER SPRING, MD.; JOSEPHINE CAMPBELL, MT. RANIER. MD.; DOROTHY A. BODEEN, WASH- INGTON, D.C.; GORDON M. CONNELLY, GARRETT PARK, MD.; ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS JAMES KEOGH, DIRECTOR, U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; HENRY A. KISSINGER, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DE- PARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C., DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, MANDAMUS, INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action seeking a declaratory judgment, mandamus and in- junctive relief for ,plaintiffs and members of the class they represent, consisting Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 316 of all those past, present and future employees of the United States Information Agency (hereinafter USIA) and the Department of State who have been, are being, or will be denied Civil Service appointments, classifications, job security, veterans preference, assignments, and/or promotional opportunities as the result of management decisions and practices aimed deliberately and illegally at per- manently replacing all GS-7 level and above Civil Service (defined as officer level) employees in domestic staffing positions in these agencies within the terri- torial United States through the misuse of the Foreign Service Reserve officer -category created under the Foreign Service Act of 1946. 2. Plaintiffs contend that the USIA and the Department of State have en- gaged in, and are engaged in, a planned, deliberate and purposeful program to phase out all Civil Service positions from their agencies, through the use of Foreign Service Reserve appointments for domestic staffing positions as well as ,other programs, policies and practices, in order to accomplish this objective. Plaintiffs contend that by so doing, the defendants have violated the statutory .and constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and of the class they represent. In seek- ing to achieve their objective, the defendants, without any legislative authoriza- tion, have done and continue to do the following : a. Appointing Foreign Service Reserve officers, tinder a synthetic category labeled Foreign Affairs Specialists, to perform essentially and traditionally do- mestic staffing functions for which Civil Service General Schedule officer level employees previously have been, and in many instances, are still being employed. b. Ignoring the basic requirement that all jobs in the competitive service in the Executive Branch must be filled in accordance with Civil Service laws and related statutes unless specific legislation provides otherwise. c. Ignoring and violating the limitations under which appointments of For- eign Service Reserve officers may be made under the Foreign Service Act of 1946, namely to make available to the Foreign Service such specialized skills as may from time to time be required. d. Amending by Departmental and Agency declarations, the primary objective of the Foreign Service Act "(t)o enable the Foreign Service effectively to serve abroad the interests of the United States," in order to authorize the eventual ouster of all Civil Service personnel from employment with the USIA and the Department of State within the territorial limits of the United States. e. Inducing and coercing Civil Service employees to convert to Foreign 'Service Reserve officer status through offers of preference for promotional opportunities, advantageous assignments, and the financial advantages inherent in "lateral con- versions" and in eventual higher annuities under the Foreign Service Retire- ment and Disability Act, and through the fear of potential separations by reduc- tions in force at some future date if still in Civil Service status. f. Restricting all new appointments to officer level positions only to those indi- viduals, even if on Civil Service registers, who can be persuaded to accept For- eign Service Reserve officer status for domestic staffing functions in which the possibility of ever being sent overseas is virtually nonexistent and, in so doing, applying limitations as to age which are prohibited under Civil Service laws and regulations and the Fair Labor Standards Act and also depriving such employees of any job security for a minimum of three and a possible maximum of five years. g. Ignoring and violating the provisions of the Civil Service Act of 1883. the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, the Classification Act of 1949, the Veterans Pref- erence Act and other statutes for the protection of career Civil Service em- ployees in domestic staffing positions, insofar as those under Foreign Service Reserve appointments are concerned, while exposing those who obtained Foreign Service Reserve appointments with "unlimited tenure" to the hazards of a "selection out" for time-in-grade or low ranking as well as mandatory retire- ment at age 60. It. Applying a double standard as to terms and conditions of employment to those who are appointed Foreign Service Reserve officers for Departmental or Agency domestic staffing as contrasted to those who are appointed Foreign V Service Reserve officers legitimately to provide specialized skills needed in the Foreign Service to serve abroad, the interests of the United States. 3. Plaintiffs seek redress for these past and continuing violations of their stat- utory and constitutional rights by means of a declaratory judgment as to the rights of plaintiffs and the class they represent and for a preliminary and perma- nent injunction restraining defendants from maintaining policies, practices, cus- tonis or usages under which : a. Employees are appointed or assigned as Foreign Service Reserve officers to occupy Agency or Departmental staffing positions within the United States Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 except insofar as may be required to provide occasional "home tours" as required by statute for officers on overseas duty ; and b. Civil Service employees are induced, coerced or pressured to convert to Foreign Service Reserve officer status even though employed on a continuing and permanent basis within the United States. U. JURISDICTION 4. This action arises under the laws and Constitution of the United States and the jurisdiction of this Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. ? 1331(a), which gives Dis- trict Courts jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions in which the total amount in controversy is over $10,000; upon 28 U.S.C. ? 1361 which gives District Courts jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus ; upon the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ?? 702-706 which provides for judicial review of actions of federal agencies; upon 28 U.S.C. ??2201 and 2202, which gives District Courts power to issue declaratory judgments; upon the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. ? 1651 (a) ; and under the Fifth Amendment to the United States A. Plaintiffs 5. The American Federation of Government Employees (hereinafter referred to as AFGE) is a national labor organization affiliated with the AFL-CIO composed of federal civilian employees of the United States and the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, AFGE, in its own right and through its various local union affiliates, holds some 1,541 exclusive recognitions throughout the Executive Branch of the government and represents approximately 650,000 federal employees under those recognitions. Among its purposes is the protection and strengthening of the job rights and security of its members and all government employees under regula- tions, statutes and the Constitution. 6. Local 1812, AFGE, has within its membership all members of the AFGE who work for the United States Information Agency, whether Civil Service General Schedule (GS) or Wage System (WS or WB) employees, Foreign Service Infor- mation officers (FSIO), Foreign Service Reserve officers (FSR), or Foreign Service Staff officers (FSS). They number 950 at present. AFGE Local 1812 has been recognized by the United States Information Agency as the exclusive bar- gaining agent for nearly 2,000 eligible federal Civil Service employees employed at the USIA in such capacity is a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the USIA. This recognition of AFGE Local 1812 as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative for employees at the USIA is pursuant to the provisions of the Execu- tive Order 10988 (27 Fed. Reg. 511) and E.O. 11491 (34 Fed. Reg. 17605) since July 27, 1971. All GS-7 or above Civil Service employees (defined as officer level) at USIA are subject to having their jobs taken over, their job security, tenure, promotions and classifications undermined and destroyed and being replaced by Foreign Service Reserve officers. 7. Local 1534, AFGE, has within its membership all members of the AFGE who work for the Department of State, whether Civil Service, General Schedule (GS) employees, Foreign Service officers, Foreign Service Reserve officers, or Foreign Service Staff officers. They number at the present time 473. In addition, Local 1534 is the exclusive bargaining agent for those Civil Service employees of the Department of State who are employed in the Foreign Service Institute School of Language and in the Publicity and Reproduction Division. All GS-7's or above Civil Service employees (defined as officer level) at the Department of state are subject to having their jobs taken over, their job security, tenure, promotions, and classifications undermined and destroyed and being replaced by Foreign Service Reserve officers. 8. Plaintiff Bruce N. Gregory is the President of Local 1812, AFGE, and Is a Project Officer, GS-13, employed by the USIA in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff Gregory has been a USIA employee since 1967 when he joined as a GS-11. He Is presently assigned to the Foreign Policy Staff of the Information Center Service, USIA. Plaintiff Gregory was the recipient of an outstanding performance evalua- tion in 1973. As President of Local 1812, AFGE, he is suing in that capacity, as a representative of the class, as well as individually. 9. Plaintiff Josephine Campbell is Vice-President of Local 1812, AFGE and is a writer-editor, GS-13, employed at the USIA in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff Campbell has been a USIA employee since 1956 and is presently assigned to the Africa Branch of the Press and Publications Service, USIA. As Vice-President 50-236-80-21 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 of Local 1812 she is suing, as a? representative of the class in that capacity, as well as individually. 10. Plaintiff Dorothy Bodeen is Vice President of Local 1534, AFGE and is a GS-9 Intelligence Assistant in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Depart- ment of State in Washington, D.G. She has been a Department of State employee since 1956 and has worked for the federal government for twenty-seven years. As Vice President of Local 1534, she is suing, as a representative of the class in that capacity, as well as individually. 11. Plaintiff Gordon M. Connelly is a shop steward of Local 1812, AFGE, and is employed as a Foreign Service Reserve officer with limited tenure, FSRL 3/1 on a five year appointment at USIA. He was formerly employed as a GS-13 Social Science Analyst, Office of Research, Media Division, USIA, until his conversion to FSRL in March, 1974. Plaintiff Connelly has worked at the USIA since 1960. He is suing individually, as well as a representative of the class of all those similarly situated who were formerly General Schedule Civil Service employees who were induced or coerced to accept Foreign Service 'Reserve officer appointments. 12. Defendant James Keogh is Director of the United States Information Agency and is sued in his official capacity. As such, he is responsible for the employment practices and policies of the USIA and the necessity that these practices and policies conform to the regulations of the USIA, the Civil Service Commission and the laws and Constitution of the United States. 13. Defendant Henry A. Kissinger is Secretary of State and Head of the Department of State and is sued in his official capacity. As such he is responsible for the employment practices and policies of the Department of State and the necessity that these practices and policies conform to the regulations of the Department, the Civil Service Commission and the laws and Constitution of the United States. IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 14. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the organizational and individual plaintiffs bring this action on their behalf and on behalf of all past, present, or future similarly situated Civil Service employees at USIA and the Department of State. Each of them is fully entitled to the pro- tections and benefits which are afforded to such federal employees by the Civil Service laws, by other related statutes of the United States, by regulations of the Civil Service Commission, by regulations of the defendants, and each of them is directly and immediately threatened by grave and irreparable harm, damages, and loss of Job rights and opportunities by reason of the policies, programs and practices complained of herein. 15. In support of this claim, plaintiffs allege the following facts : a. The Size of the Class.-The class is defined as all those Civil Service em- ployees of the USIA and the Department of State whose jobs have been filled in the past, are being filled and are threatened to be filled in the future by For- eign Service Reserve officers, or who will be denied job assignments and promo- tional opportunities as the result of the placement of Foreign Service Reserve officers in domestic staffing positions in the United States and whose careers and jobs as Civil Service employees have been, are being and will be adversely affected by this practice, as well as those AFGE members in domestic staffing positions who continue to have reemployment rights to Civil Service status, although now under Foreign Service Reserve appointments. There are, at the present time, 1,906 Civil Service employees at the USIA and 1,083 Foreign Service Reserve officers in domestic staffing positions. There are at the present time 3,421 Civil Service employees at the Department of State and 2,213 Foreign Service Reserve officers in domestic staffing positions. Plaintiffs will seek to discover through interrogatories (i) the total number of Foreign Service Reserve officers serving in domestic positions who were induced or coerced to convert from their General Schedule (GS) positions; (ii) the total number of GS employees whose jobs have been filled, are being filled and are threatened to be filled in the future by Foreign Service Reserve officers. These persons are so numerous that joinder of all would be impracticable. All members of the class possess common rights and seek a common relief. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 b. Basis on which plaintiffs claim to be adequate representatives of the class, Plaintiff American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is a na- tional labor organization of federal civilian employees. It, and its locals 1812 and 1534, included within their membership, Civil Service and Foreign Service employees of the USIA and the Department of State whose employment, post- tions, assignments, careers, and rights as federal employees have. been directly affected or will be affected as a consequence of defendants' program for the phasing out of Civil Service positions and filling them with Foreign Service Re- serve officers. They include among their members individuals who have been employed, are employed or might be employed at the USIA and at the Depart- ment of State and have been affected, are being affected or might.be affected by the activities.herein complained of by defendants. Plaintiffs Gregory, Campbell, and ? Bodeen are competitive Civil Service employees whose chances for advan- tageous assignments and promotions have been .diminished and whose careers and rights as federal Civil Service employees have been threatened and dam- aged by defendants' policies, programs, and practices of appointing. Foreign Service Reserve officers to domestic, competitive Civil Service positions. In ad- dition, plaintiff Gregory is the President of Local 1812 of AFGE, and plaintiff Campbell is a Vice President of said local. Plaintiff Bodeen is Vice President of Local 1534, AFG'E:.Plaintiff Connelly is a shop steward'of Local 1812 AFGE and is a former Civil Service employee who is now employed as a Foreign Service Reserve officer of limited tenure. In those capacities they will represent the inter- ests of the members of their union and all other federal empolyees at USIA and the Department of State. as well. c. Questions .of:la'w and fact that are common to the class.-There are common questions of law and fact protecting the rights of the members of the class which include, but are not limited to the following : I. Lack of legal or statutory authority for defendants to employ Foreign Service Reserve officers to occupy domestic staffing positions within the United States. ii. Lack of legal or statutory authority for defendants to eliminate competitive Civil Service classifications for such domestic positions. iii. The disadvantages suffered by federal Civil Service employees who have been, are being affected or might be affected with respect to job opportunities, promotions, assignments, career advancement and training as a consequence of defendants' actions. iv. Violations of the rights of these Civil Service employees under the Civil Service Act of 1883, the Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912, the Classification. Act of 1949 and/or the Veterans Preference Act. v; Plaintiffs further allege that the above mentioned class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable ; that there are questions. of law and fact common to the class ; the claims of the above named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of .the class ; that they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and that the defendants and their predecessors have acted and refused to action the grounds generally applicable to the class. Under these circumstances .injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole is appropri- ate, and a class action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. IV. FACTS 16. Congress passed the Foreign Service' Act of 1946 in which its primary ob- jective is set forth as the following : "The Congress hereby declares that the objectives of this Act are to develop and.strengthen the Foreign Service of the United States so as- 1. To enable the, Foreign Service effectively to serve abroad the, interests of the United States; y .t s s w t + 6. To provide for the temporary appointment or assignment to the Foreign Service of representative and outstanding citizens of the United States possess- ing special skills and abilities ;" 22 U.S.C. ? 801. 17. The Foreign Service Act of 1946 provided that among the categories of officers and employees of the Service were : "Foreign Service Reserve officers, who shall be assigned to the Service on a temporary basis from government agencies or appointed on a temporary basis Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 outside the government in accordance with the provisions of Section 522, in order to make available to the Service such specialized skills as may from time to time be required ;" 22 U.S.C. ? 861(3). 18. Section 522 of the Foreign Service Act as' amended (now 22 U.S.C. ?922) provides for the appointment as Foreign Service Reserve officers of individuals with special skills from government service, as well as from the private sector, for periods of up to five years. 19. The above statutory provisions are applicable to the USIA under Reor- ganization Plan Number 8 of 1953 (18 Fed. Reg. 4542, 67 Stat. 642), as amended; Exec. Order 10477 (18 Fed. Reg. 4540, August 1, 1953), as amended; P.L. 90-494 ?? 5, 6, (82 Stat. 811) ; Exec. Order 11434 (33 Fed. Reg. 16485, Nov. 8, 1968). 20. Civil Service career officers and employees in the Department of State and the USIA have always enjoyed all of the protections of the Civil Service Act of 1883, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, the Classification Act of 1949 and the Veterans Preference Act against unlawful, arbitrary and capricious separations from the federal service, demotions and reductions in rank or compensation ; and their right to promotions and increases in compensation have been governed by the Civil Service Classification Act and by the Federal Civil Service merit promotion system. 21. Congress intended that there be duel personnel systems in the USIA and the Department of State so that the permanent domestic based personnel would be governed by rules and regulations of the Civil Service system and the personnel involved in the foreign based activities of these agencies would be governed by the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, 22 U.S.C. ? 801, et seq. . 22. In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson called on Congress to create "a unified foreign affairs personnel system" in the Department of State and USIA. In his Presidential message to Congress President Johnson said "There will be a single Foreign Affairs Personnel System, broad enough to accommodate the personnel needs-domestic, as well as overseas-of the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency, and to cover appropriate personnel of other agencies engaged in foreign affairs." 23. The President urged Congress to pass the so-called Hays Bill, (introduced by Wayne Hays, Dem. Ohio), H.R. 6277, 89th Congress, called "The Foreign Service Act Amendments of 1965" which would, among other things : 1. Amend 22 U.S.C. ? 801 so as to broaden the "objectives" of the Foreign Service Act to serve interests "at home" as well as "abroad." 2. Amend 22 U.S.C. ? 886 (? 441 of the Act) as follows: "Section 6 of the Bill would amend Section 441 of the Act which now limits the Secretary's classi- fication authority under subsection (a) to positions in the Service 'at posts abroad.' This limitation would be repeated." [Emphasis added]. 24. President Johnson further stated : To carry out these principles, legislation is needed to do a number of things. Among these are : * * * (2) Provide a transitional period of three years during which Civil Service employees of the foreign affairs agencies may decide to become participants in the new system without screening and without loss of compensation. Those who do not wish to participate will be assisted in obtaining suitable employment in other government agencies. But after the transitional period, the dual Foreign Service-Civil Service personnel systems of the foreign affairs agencies would be ended and only the unified foreign service would apply." [Emphasis added]. 25. The Hays Bill, H.R. 6277, in the face of overwhelming employee opposi- tion failed to pass the Congress. It was tabled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after hearings and has never been revived. 26. In 1968 Congress passed Public Law 90-494, 22 U.S.C. ?? 922, 929-32. 27. 22 U.S.C. ? 929 provides under the heading "Limitation on Tenure": "(a) Any officer appointed as a Foreign Service Reserve Officer after August 20, 1968, may serve as such for not more than five years. During such period (no sooner than the expiration of the third year but no later than the expiration of the fifth year) such Foreign Service Reserve officer shall be appointed as a Foreign Service officer, Foreign Service Information officer, Foreign Service Reserve officer with unlimited tenure, Foreign Service Staff officer, or shall be terminated as a Foreign Service Reserve officer." 28. 22 U.S.C. ? 931 provides under the heading "Limited Tenure": "Any Foreign Service Reserve officer appointed before August 20, 1.968, who has completed at least three years of continuous and satisfactory service as such on Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100060001-4 such date or who will have completed at least three years of such service before the exploration of the 3-year period beginning on August 20, 1968, may be appointed as a Foreign Service Reserve officer with unlimited tenure." 29. On August 26, 1968 the USIA announced: "The new law does not affect the status or rights of Civil Service employees of the Agency." 30. No claim was advanced in 1968 or 1969 by either the USIA or the Depart- ment of State that the Foreign Service Reserve with Unlimited Tenure had any bearing on domestic staffing. Use of the new category within USIA was strictly restricted to certain categories of Reserve officers with overseas duty and no use was made within the State Department where some Foreign Service officers objected to the new category as a possible dual career corps. 31. Late in 1969 Department of State management undertook an elaborate internal self-examination of its personnel system. 32. On February 16, 1971, and allegedly in exclusive reliance on the provisions of Public Law 90-494 dated August 20, 1968 (82 Stat. 813, 814; 22 U.S.C. ?? 922-932), the Department of State issued a "Management Reform Bulletin" to all of its employees entitled "A Unified Personnel System-the Foreign Affairs Specialist Corps". The said "Reform Bulletin" announced the establishment of a new Corps composed of Foreign Service Reserve officers with unlimited tenure, and stated that the Department intended to seek "the conversion" to said corps, of all eligible career Civil Service officers and that the purpose of the new corps is the creation of a "Unified Personnel System." 33. A similar program was announced at USIA and is explained in USIA's Manual of Operation and Administration, Part V-A/V-B-1000. 34. Charts attached to the Department of State's "Reform Bulletin" demon- strated that 6,928 positions in the Department would be converted to the new corps, of which 2,556 would be simply "administrative" positions and 517 would be regular professional positions. Said charts also showed that of the adminis- trative positions scheduled for conversion to the new corps, approximately half of 1,234 would be "positions in the United States" as distinguished from "over- seas positions." 35. An April 9, 1971 USIA issued an "announcement" entitled "Agency De- cision on FAS Program" which stated: "The Director has decided to establish a Foreign Affairs Specialist (FAS) Corps and the Office of Personnel and Training (IPT) has been instructed to develop the details of an FAS Program for USIA similar to that published by the Department of State in its Management Reform Bulletin No. 8 * * *. "The decision to establish an FAS Corps cannot be implemented until a de- tailed plan similar to that of the Department of State is developed for publica- tion. The formulation of the details of the plan will take several months but it will be published as quickly as the necessary studies can be completed. * * * "The long range goal of the Agency is to staff all officer positions at home and abroad under Foreign Service personnel authorities. All future officer appoint- ments will be made under authorities of the Foreign Service Act and PL 90-494. "All officer positions will be designated for FSIO or FAS staffing. Present career CS employees will not be required to convert to Foreign Serrtce appoint- ments, regardless of the designation of their positions [as FAS]. The decision on whether or not to convert to FAS will be strictly voluntary. However, the num- ber of Civil Service (CS) officers will gradually decrease as present CS em- ployees convert to FAS and those who do not convert leave or retire and are replaced by appointees under Foreign Service." (Emphasis added). 30. Thereafter, on July 1, 1971 Frank Shakespeare, then Director of USIA, allegedly acting exclusively on the basis of legal authority afforded to him by Public Law 90-494 hereinabove referred to, actually went ahead and established a new Foreign Affairs Specialist (FAS) Corps in USIA. USIA's Manual of Oper- ations and Administration Part V-A/V-B Section 1000 A, issued on July 1, 1971 asserts "This plan for establishing the FAS Corps is based on the use of the FSRU authorities provided by P.L. 90-494." The plan provided for the direct and immediate appointment as FAS (FSRU) officers any Civil Service Officer who applied for it, subject to minimal qualifications. 37. On July 6, 1971 the American Federation of Government Employees and its Locals 1534 and 1812, AFGE filed suit seeking to enjoin the Foreign Affairs Specialist Program in either the Department of State or the United States In- formation Agency and to have it declared illegal. (Civil Action No. 3141-71, D.D.C.). Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 33. On June 12, 1973 the Honorable Howard J. Corcoran, United States District -Judge, issued a memorandum order in which he granted the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment in part and in which he held : a. "* * * as a matter of law that the defendants' appointment of any personnel, ,other than those who have served as Foreign Service Reserve for three years as Foreign Service Reserve Officers with Unlimited Tenure is action which lies out- side the authority of the defendants as defined by 22 U.S.G. 929(a)." He ordered that defendants be restrained and enjoined from offering or extending appoint- ments to the FSRU category to any but Reserve officers with at least three years of continuous satisfactory service in that category." b. "There is no specific statutory authorization for the establishment of the `FAS' personnel system at either USIA or the State Department. As was noted earlier * * * `FAS' is merely an acronyn for a personnel program-it is not an individual personnel designation. Of course the fact that a program has not been specifically authorized by statute does not necessarily mean that it is forbidden. There is no law against the use of imagination by the heads of executive depart- ments in discharging their responsibilities, but if and when their imagination carries them outside the boundaries of their statutory authority,. an injunction will lie." Judge Corcoran found statutory authorization for the redesignation of officer level positions in the Department of State and USIA, as indeed the plaintiffs have recognized and not challenged. 39. Judge Corcoran, in his opinion, did not decide and left open, the question of whether it was legal under the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, to appoint or assign Foreign Service Reserve officers with either limited or with unlimited tenure, to permanent domestic positions in the USIA and the Department of State. V. CLAIMS 40, Plaintiffs assert for themselves and the, thousands of federal employees in the USIA and the Department of State for whose benefit they sue. herein:. . . a. That defendants have acted and are continuing to act contrary to law in attempting, by practices, programs and policies, including but not limited to the FAS Program, to phase out all Civil Service employees in the USIA and the Department of State and to replace them with Foreign Service Reserve officers in' domestic, competitive Civil Service positions. b. That the category of Foreign Service Reserve officer, whether with limited or unlimited tenure, was intended by Congress solely to serve the interests of the United States abroad and that no power was granted to the Department of State or USIA, to assign them to permanent domestic positions within the con- tinental United States. c. Neither the 'Department of State nor USIA have the legal authority, arhi- trarily and unilaterally, to remove or transfer positions permanently in the com- petitive Civil Service located in the territorial United States to the Foreign Service Reserve system or to determine that henceforth such domestic positions, when vacant, shall be filled on a permanent basis without reference to the Civil Service laws or to the Veterans Preference Act and regulations which govern selections and appointments to and promotions and retentions in such positions in the, federal service; or . ? tl. ? Neither the USIA nor the Department of State have the legal authority, arbitrarily, :to decree that thousands of federal. Civil Service employees who are satisfactorily performing their duties of employment in those agencies tinder the Civil Service laws and regulations must either "voluntarily convert" to the Foreign Service Reserve category, herein described, or effectively to waive or encumber their right to future promotions or advancement in the federal Civil Service. ? .41. Plaintiffs allege * that the defendants have arbitrarily and. capriciously deprived plaintiffs and the class they represent, of rights under applicable regulations, statutes and the Constitution and have continuously and per- manently injured them in their chosen work in depriving them arbitrarily, c,anriciously and illegally, of training opportunities, promotions, assignments and other job opportunities by appointing Foreign Service Reserve officers to domes- tic, competitive Civil Service positions and discriminating against General Sched- ule employees : a. More particularly, the creation of a second category of Foreign Service Reserve officers for the specific purpose of filling permanently the domestic Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 staffing jobs within the USIA and the Department of State, in contrast to the statutory category of "specialists to supply skills needed in the Foreign Serv- ice, * * *" and other policies, practices and programs of the Department of State and USIA threaten irreparably to injure, damage and ultimately destroy the vitality of the Civil Service system in both agencies. b. More particularly, both these plans as well as other programs, policies and plans constitute an illegal, calculated capricious endeavor on the part of the individual defendants herein, and their respective personnel officials to entice, force and compel all Civil Service employees employed in other than clerical positions in the two agencies, mainly those employed exclusively here in the continental United States, to abandon all of their statutory rights and pro- tections under the Civil Service laws (Title V, United States Code) and regula- tions, the Veterans Preference Act, (5 U.S.C. ?? 3309-3313, 3363, 3501-3504, 7511- 7512 and 7701) and regulations thereunder, the Performance Ratings Act (5 U.S.C. ?? 4301-4308) and regulations, the Classification Act (5 U.S.C. ?? 5101- 5115) and regulations, the Federal Pay Rates statutes (5 U.S.C. ?? 5301-5596), the adverse actions provisions of Title 5 U.S.C. ?? 7501-7512, and regulations thereunder, the Civil Service merit system for promotion, and the Civil Service Retirement System in favor of an illegally devised personnel scheme, which was flatly tabled and rejected by the Congress in 1966 and never again revived. 42. Unless enjoined by the Court in this action defendants and the federal agencies they administer, will continue to assign Foreign Service Reserve of- ficers to permanent, domestic, competitive Civil Service positions ; and that they will continue to coerce, induce and to bring pressure to bear on Civil Service incumbents in said positions, to force them "voluntarily" to waive all of their existing rights, protections under the federal Civil Service and Veterans Pref- erence Laws and regulations, mentioned above, and to convert them from long standing Civil Service status to Foreign Service Reserve officer status ; that they will continue unlawfully to narrow and foreclose statutory promotion and job retention rights for those Civil Service employees in permanent domestic jobs who fail or refuse to convert ; and that they will ultimately succeed, contrary to the will of Congress expressed as late as 1966, in frustrating and defeating all of the Civil Service and Veteran Preference statutes and regulations mentioned above which were enacted and promulgated by the Congress to protect the in- tegrity of the Civil Service system for permanent positions in the continental United States and to insure that Civil Service employees are not arbitrarily maneuvered or manipulated out of their positions. Finally, of course; unless the Court grants injunctive relief herein, it is clear that the Civil Service sys- tem will soon disappear, contrary to law, for all but clerical employees in both the Department of State and USIA. 43. No previous application for relief has been made. Plaintiff's allege that no adequate remedy of that law is available to prevent the severe, irreparable injury, damage and loss they and the class of employees in the USIA and the Department of State whom they represent, will sustain as a direct consequence of the unlawful, capricious actions of the defendants herein above recited. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated pray : 1. For a declaration that the system, policy, and program of appointing For- eign Service Reserve officers to domestic competitive Civil Service positions is without legal authority and in violation of the Civil Service laws, applicable rules and regulations, the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, and the United States Constitution and that any designation of such domestic staffing functions as Foreign Service Reserve officer positions is without basis in law and in violation thereof. 2. For a declaration that the permanent placing of Foreign Service Reserve officers, or only those willing to convert to Foreign Service Reserve officer status in domestic competitive Civil Service positions is in violation of. Civil Service employees rights under applicable rules and regulations, laws and the United States Constitution. 3. For a declaration that plaintiff and other similarly situated have been unlawfully deprived of career advancement opportunities by reason of the place- ment of Foreign Service Reserve officers in domestic competitive Civil Service positions. 4. That all members of plaintiffs' class be immediately promoted to the grades and/or positions which they have been denied by reason of the placement of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Foreign Service Reserve officers and of those who were willing to convert to For- eign Service Reserve officer status in domestic competitive Civil Service positions. 5. That all members of the class who have been persuaded or coerced to ac- cept the patently illegal status of domestic Foreign Service Reserve officers be restored to the GS grades and steps equivalent to their present levels in the Foreign Service Reserve. 6. Enjoin defendants from continuing any and all programs, policies, or prac- tices which seek to replace and displace permanently qualified Civil Service em- ployees with Foreign Service Reserve officers in domestic competitive Civil Service positions in the United States. 7. Order that all members of the class who have been denied appointments under the Civil Service law for domestic staffing positions because of the de- fendants' insistence upon recruitment of them as Foreign Service Reserve offi- cers be given retroactive appointments under the equivalent General Schedule or Wage Systems to positions for which they are qualified. 8. Pay to plaintiffs their costs incurred, herein, including reasonable attorney fees. 9. Grant such other further relief to plaintiffs and the class they represent which the Court may consider just and proper. Respectfully submitted, LAWRENCE SPEISER, Attorney for Plaintiffs. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : SS (Bruce N. Gregory, being first duly sworn in oath, deposes and says that he is one of the plaintiffs herein ; that he has read the foregoing complaint, and that he knows the contents thereof; that the matter and things therein stated are true to his personal knowledge, and those stated upon information and belief that he believes are true. BRUCE N. GREGORY. MARTHA W. ROBERTS, Notary Public, D.C. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : SS Dorothy A. Bodeen, being first duly sworn in oath, deposes and says that she is one of the plaintiffs herein ; that she has read the foregoing complaint, and that she knows the contents thereof ; that the matter and things therein stated are true to her personal knowledge, and those stated upon information and belief that she believes to be true. DOROTHY A. BODEEN. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of April, 1975. MARTHA W. ROBERTS, Notary Public, D.C. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : SS Gordon M. Connelly, being first duly sworn in oath, deposes and says that he is one of the plaintiffs herein ; that he has read the foregoing complaint, and that he knows the contents thereof ; that the matter and things therein stated are true to his personal knowledge, and those stated upon information and belief that he believes to be true. GORDON'M. CONNELLY. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of April 1975. PAUL F. FELLEMAN, Notary Public, D.C. My Commission expires Feb. 29, 1980. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA : SS Josephine Campbell, being first duly sworn in oath, deposes and says that she is one of the plaintiffs herein ; that she has read the foregoing complaint, and that she knows the contents thereof; that the matter and things therein stated are Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 true to her personal knowledge, and those stated upon information and behalf that she believes to be true. JOSEPHINE CAMPBELL. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of April 1975. MARTHA W. ROBERTS, Notary Public, D.C. My Commission expires April 14, 1976. The CHAIRMAN. In summation then do you oppose or support the bill, the legislation as presently written? Mr. BLAYLOCK. We oppose most of the provisions of the bill as written. The CHAIRMAN. So in other words if it was unchanged, you would rather see it not passed than passed? Mr. BLAYLOCK. This is true. The CHAIRMAN. You represent the ICA, the Information Branch. As you may know, the FSIO Corps calve out of my legislation some years ago. I am coining to the conclusion that I may have made an error, or maybe not an error at the time, but that we would do better now if the FSIO Corps were part of the FSO Corps, as a separate cone, so you would then have a cone for administrative, consular, political, economic, and also for informational activities. What would be your reaction to that? Mr. BLAYLOCK. Well, basically we are opposed to it. The CHAIRMAN. Is that a question of turf, because you might lose the representation of a group? Mr. BLAYLOCK. No, really not, Senator. We as an organization, and I am sure that you are very much aware, we work through the civil service reform and others. We do not and have not by constitution taken postures for jurisdictional purposes. And we have a constitu- tional provision that mandates that our organization work for effec- tive, efficient government. And I think we are probably one of the few unions that so exist. The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing wrong with turf. We fight for turf all the time in the Congress and executive branch but we own up to it. And I think that when that is an issue it should be mentioned. Mr. BLAYLOCK. I would point out, Senator, if I may that with regard to the Civil Service Reform Act in which the administration developed many of these proposals such as the Senior Executive Service, per- formance pay, et cetera, our union's support of that piece of legislation-and we worked for many amendments of that piece of legislation as you may know; it did not come through the Congress as proposed by the administration-one of the conditions was for a strong labor/management title. Because we are convinced that when any agency or in this case the executive branch is given broad authori- ties by the Congress and that is transferred to an agency one of the best protections that we have is a strong labor/management program that gives the employees statutory rights to have a say in those per- sonnel policies because the employees, if they are given those rights by the Congress, are going to be able to raise objections. Without adequate empoyee protections you are going to have con- formity. And that word replaces many other more sinister words. As I pointed out, in the Senior Executive Service under Civil Service Reform and the regular civil service, Senior Executive Service mem- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 bers are protected by the title I of that law, which spells out the pro- hibited personnel practice and the merit principles. As a result it would be a violation of the statute under title I for the administration to take action against a member of the Senior Execu- tive Service solely because he belonged to one political party or the other. It is a violation of the law. Explicit reference to prohibited personnel practices is not included in this proposed legislation by the administration for the Foreign Service. There are some additional protections that have to be included in the Senior Foreign Service there or we create a very dangerous situation. The CHAIRMAN. Along that same line what is your reaction to the Senior Foreign Service performance pay concept? Mr.,BLAYLocK. We personally don't think performance pay is going to work. We do not support the idea of performance pay. And if you look at the private sector-and you will see in our comprehensive statement we go directly to that issue-that the private sector itself is moving away from the experiment of performance pay because it is creating competition rather than cooperation. Witnesses before me have already talked about some of the problems of competition, of creating situations where employees are motivated to get the bonus pay or the performance pay. We. think that we must establish rates of pay by tenure and length of service, and that the employee's length of service must be based upon their performance. In addition, you have to compensate for the hazards, for the work assignments and' for the level of responsibility. The employees who achieve levels are then promoted into higher ranks but they also gret the differentials that compensate for hazardous duty. We don't think performance pay is going to work. The CHAIRMAN. Comparability with military or civil service. Do you think there should be a greater comparability of the Foreign ervice-you don't represent the Foreign Service, but the Foreign Service Information officers in the ICA, greater comparability with the military service or with the civil service! Mr. BI.AYLOCK. If you say either/or,,I would have to say that we think, first, that we should have comparability-we are talking in the area of pay I assume now. In the area of pay I would say, obviously we need to have comparability with the civil service. That is where an awful lot of your recruiting comes from. And presently you do not have comparability in some areas. Now if you are talking about the overall structure, we have mixed reactions. And we have discussed this at our policy level. And at this point we have mixed reactions. We see more a combination of-the two, not saying one or the other. We see the uniqueness of the Foreign Service and the foreign affairs agencies we represent as needing a combination of some military structure and some civilian structure. And we pointed it out. in our statement. The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing wrong with the word'elite as long as it is used correctly. And I have also thought that the Foreign Service was basically in our overall structure somewhat like an elite civil serv- ice. Like in the French they have, I have forgotten the name, the Inspecteurs de Finance, who can be moved around from agency to Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 327 agency. And I always thought the Foreign Service should be much the same thing. The people you represent in ICA Mr. BLAYLocx. We agree with that totally. The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Are in that position and might well be moved to another governmental agency doing a special job and, coming back somewhat like Ambassador Carlucii. Mr. BLAYLOCK. Well, even if that function is moved into another, agency though, Senator, we feel that the responsibility and the final authorities for the way the other agency carries out that program should be under the control of our Foreign Service. That is where the expertise is. The CHAIRMAN. One of the problems with the FSIO corps now is that it has become very separate and you are not getting the cross- fertilization that we hoped for originally. I would like to see more of your people in political and economic jobs and becoming chiefs of mission. And this is not happening as things stand. And that is why I lean in the direction of thinking that it might be better, both from the national interest and from the interest of the people you represent, if they had a separate cone and then could spend two-thirds of their life in informational work and one-third of their life in other kinds of foreign affairs related work. That is my reasoning on this. Mr. Br.AYLocx. Well, Mr. Chairman, in every meeting that I have had with representatives of our groups that we are discussing they bring that problem up and have the same feeling. That presently there are barriers in the system that don't allow the interchange that should be. The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. I think you and I will find the number of your people 'who have been chiefs of mission, for example, is very limited, I think two or three. I may be wrong. Let us get that figure for the record and insert it. [The information referred to follows:] NUMBER OF FSIO's WHO HAVE BEEN CHIEFS OF MISSION Since 1961 when the first FSIO was named chief of mission there have been eight :FSIO chiefs of mission and four FSIO deputy chiefs, of mission. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know by any chance how many of your people, FSIO's, have been chiefs of mission? Mr. ME, DD. No more than two or three. The 'CHAIRMAN. I 'think that condition will stay as long as you have the present separation whereas if there is a fifth cone I think there would be a greater flowing back and forth. And frankly,.I think diplomacy moves along very well when you have information- ally sensitized, propaganda sensitized people engaging in it. Mr. MEDD. If I may add 'to the subject, sir, you mentioned earlier or you questioned whether this is a matter of turf for AFGE. AFGE is a trade union and it also represents the Foreign Service, as you know, of ICA. The CHAIRMAN. I emphasize as a labor supportive man, I have nothing against trade unions; quite the contrary. Mr. MEDD. I understand. We also speak as a union representing the-several hundred officers of the FSIO Corps. I think we speak for them when we are talking about maintaining the integrity of that Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 328 corps as officers who work for a specialized agency and who feel they have special skills to perform within that agency. I believe you know there is a concern that if, they became just another cone within the Foreign Service personnel structure that there would be a great deal ,of dilution of the positions that they now have. I would not neces- sarily add to the number, to that two or three who have become chiefs of mission but that there might be some wholesale raiding into that cone from the Foreign Service officers themselves looking for ways to advance their own careers. The CHAIRMAN. I see that. And I appreciate your views very much indeed. I would say your views are shared by the present director, Mr. Rheinhardt, because he shares those and does not agree with my thoughts. So I would say nothing is going to happen in the immediate future. I thank you very much indeed, Mr. Blaylock and your asso- ciates, for being with us and I wish you well. Our next witness is Ms. Lesley Dorman, president, Association of American Foreign Service Women. Welcome, Ms. Dorman. STATEMENT OF LESLEY DORMAN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE WOMEN, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AC- COMPANIED BY PATRICIA RYAN AND MARCIA CURRAN Ms. DORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a longer statement, Mr. Chairman, which I request be put into the record. This is brief for everybody's benefit. The CHAIRMAN. That will be inserted in the record after your oral statement. Ms. DORMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Association of American Foreign Service Women [AAFSW] deeply appreciates the opportunity to testify before you today. We are especially grateful to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their concern and understanding of the human side of Foreign Service personnel matters demonstrated in the past. Our independent volunteer organization has existed since the early sixties to meet welfare and education needs in the Foreign Service community, raising funds for scholarships and participating in many local community projects. Our members are women, both employees and wives, who spend the majority of their working lives in worldwide service representing the American people abroad. While life in the Foreign Service is stimulating and has undeniable rewards of personal growth, travel, and international friendship, the darker side is spotlighted today. We experience the alienation of cul- ture shock, the isolation of language inadequacy, the hazards of rigor- ous climate and endemic disease, the trials of evacuations, and the pervasive fear of terrorism. Considerable energy has been expended by the women themselves in finding creative responses to the hardships. The AAFSW has orga- nized seminars and workshops, and pressed for training to prepare individuals for life abroad, because we believe that the prepared indi- vidual is the self-reliant individual. In 1976, the AAFSW began to recognize that changes in American society were creating stresses in the Foreign Service community. The Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 association formed a forum committee on the concerns of Foreign Service spouses and families which subsequently presented a report to the Secretary of State based on responses to a mailing of 9,000 ques- tionnaires. The forum report, which we have made available to each member of the committee, remains the most significant document to date on family life in the Foreign Service, and it continues to provide the basis of an ongoing dialog with the Secretary of State. We feel that without the sympathetic hearing accorded us by Secretary Vance, the human costs of family participation in the Foreign Service would have continued to go unrecognized. Two major recommendations of the forum report which have been implemented by the Department are the establishment of the family liaison office and the spouses' skills/talent bank. The family liaison office, known as FLO, represents the nonprofessional interests of the Foreign Service community in the policymaking councils of manage- ment. FLO provides us, at last, with a recognized channel of communi- cation. Since the opening of the office in March 1978,.FLO has been inundated with requests for advice and counsel on such questions as schooling, allowances, dependent employment, divorce, medical and mental health. In the past 2 weeks alone, they have dealt with hun- dreds of evacuees. FLO also operates the skills/talent bank, a computerized record of spouse employment resumes. We are concerned that FLO might be cut back or eliminated under a different Secretary, of State. Even now, FLO needs additional space and staff. Therefore, we urge Con- gress to incorporate the family liaison office in the new act to guaran- tee the continued existence of this valuable service. In its response to the forum report, the Department of State posed the question of "whether the Foreign Service, with its high interna- tional mobility and increasing demands on the time and energy of one family member, can accommodate the modern, highly educated American family in which both parents work and both share parent- ing and homemaking responsibilities. We feel that if the Foreign Service is to be truly representative of American society today, which-is stated as one of the basic objectives of the proposed act, then that accommodation must be made. In the past two decades, the political, social, and economic role of women in America has changed significantly. Increased mobility, longevity, education, combined with economic necessity, brought about by inflation and soaring divorce rates, have radically altered the American woman's way of life. Census figures show that two- thirds of married women in America are presently employed. It is clear that the American woman needs and expects to have a broad range of work choices and to be able to pursue a meaningful career. The Foreign Service career spouse is concerned that long-term in- ternational mobility, combined with structural barriers to employ- ment will continue to exclude her from establishing her own eco- nomic base through a career, or, at the minimum, through recent work experience. Pressures for spouse employment will continue to mount and must be met with imaginative programs. No matter how earnest the desire to become economically inde- pendent through her own paid employment, many Foreign Service Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 'wives will sacrifice the earning potential of their most productive .years in helping their families make unending cross-cultural adjust- ments and in voluntary community responsibilities. The Foreign Service homemaker is a vital resource abroad, enriching the overseas communities with thousands of hours of donated service. , For these women, divorce exacts a heavy toll. Our association is deeply concerned about the hardships of the many divorced Foreign Service wives who are left after long years of unpaid Government service abroad with no employment record, no modern skills, no social security, no shared annuity, no survivor benefits, and exorbitantly expensive medical insurance. In order to protect these women, the foreign affairs agencies must recognize earned rights for spouses and former spouses to survivor benefits and shared pensions. We have received support on this point from the Honorable Loy W. Henderson in a letter which we would like to read into the record. Ambassador Henderson says : When I was Deputy Under Secretary for Administration of the Department of State, I appeared before a subcommittee of the Senate in 1959 and defended the- position that Foreign Service wives make a different contribution from wives of civil servants. In referring to Foreign Service widows, I said "a surviving widow, in a very real sense, has earned her annuity." The following year I spoke on the same issue before a subcommittee of the House of Representatives and told them, "It has seemed to us unfair that a woman who, for instance, has devoted 30 years of her life working for the American government abroad with her husband should lose her annuity, if she should remarry after her husband dies." ' Since that time, there have been many. changes in society. Unprecedented, num- bers of marriages which have endured for years are ending in divorce. It seems just as unfair to deprive a former -wife of many years standing of her survivor annuity as it seemed then to deprive a widow,of any annuity should she remarry. They have "earned rights" to their modest recompense. . Most Foreign Service wives have spent then lives in accordance with :ground rules laid down by the government.. Government regulations "dis- couraged" them from seeking employment overseas. Until 1972 they, were graded annually' along with their husbands. Although no longer. thus graded, the overwhelming majority of Foreign. Service wives, realizing that their cooperation with their husband in a spirit of helpfulness adds to his effective- ness, have continued to work with him as a partner for the American .government. ' If, after years of joint work with her husband, the marriage of a Foreign Service wife should end in divorce, she has at present no "earned" rights. If the. same woman were a widow, she would be provided for ; if only a "former wife," she is a non-person so far as the government is concerned. These women have given up the productive years of their lives following their husbands around the globe. -It seems to me that they have clearly "earned their rights" and that the time has come for the government to honor such rights. Ms. DORMAN. Moreover, we are concerned about the effects on fami- lies of OMB's proposed cuts in the current budget. The congression- ally mandated Hayes Study shows that the middle and lower ranks in- the Foreign Service receive lower pay than the civil service for equivalent work. Yet money for pay parity as well as funds for allow- ances already authorized by Congress would be denied. These costs will be absorbed by the family members, exacerbating family problems. Although an employee has the option to resign if family concerns so dictate, let us consider the costs to the system. Not only does it cost more than $25,000 to test and train a new Foreign Service officer, but the accelerated loss of seasoned employees with expertise, languages, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 331 and, above all, personal contacts accumulated over the years could become a hemorrhage of irreplaceable assets. We do not feel that it is appropriate for the AAFSW to take a position on the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 as a whole. We do feel that any new act should fully recognize the unique sacrifices and adjustments required of Foreign Service families so as to make clear the justification for the Secretary's authority to help families in special ways. I have with me today two of my colleagues, both Foreign Service wives, Marcia Curran, chairman of the Forum Committee on Employ- ment and Career Development, and Patricia Ryan, chairman of the Forum Committee on Retirement, who have submitted reports on their areas for the record. The three of us will be happy to respond to questions. [Ms. Dorman's prepared statement and the information referred to PREPARED STATEMENT or LESLEY DORMAIN Mister Chairman, Members of the Committee : The Association of American Foreign Service Women deeply appreciates the opportunity to testify before you today. We are especially grateful to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for their concern and understanding of the human side of Foreign Service personnel matters demonstrated in the past. Our independent volunteer organization has existed since the early sixties to meet welfare and education needs in the Foreign Service community, raising funds for scholarships and participating in many local community projects. Our members are women, both employees and wives, who spend the majority of their working lives in worldwide service representing the American people abroad. While life in the Foreign Service is stimulating and has undeniable .rewards of personal growth, travel, and international friendship, the darker side is spotlighted today. We experience the alienation of culture shock, the isolation of language inadequacy, the hazards of rigorous climate and endemic disease, the trials of evacuations, and the pervasive fear of terrorism. Considerable energy has been expended by the women themselves in finding creative responses to these hardships. The AAFSW has organized seminars and workshops, and pressed for training to prepare individuals for life abroad, because we believe that the prepared individual is the self-reliant individual. In 1.976, the AAFSW began to recognize that changes in American society were creating stresses in the Foreign Service community. The Association formed a .Forum Committee on the Concerns of Foreign Service Spouses and Families which subsequently presented a report to the. Secretary of State based on responses to a mailing of 9,000 questionnaires. The Forum Report, which we have made available to each member of the Committee, remains the most significant document to date on family life in the Foreign Service, and it continues to provide the basis of an ongoing dialogue with the Secretary of State. We feel that without the sympathetic hearing accorded us by Secretary Vance, the human costs of family participation in the Foreign Service would have continued to go .unrecognized. Two major recommendations of the.Forum Report which have been imple- mented by the Department are the establishment of the Family Liaison Office .and the spouses' Skills/Talent Bank. The Family Liaison Office, known as FLO, represents the non-professional interests of the Foreign Service community in the policy-making councils of Management. FLO provides us, at last, with a recognized channel of communication. Since the opening of the office in March 1978, FLO has been inundated with requests for advice and counsel on such questions as schooling, allowances, dependent employment, divorce, medical and mental health. In the past two weeks alone, they have dealt with hundreds of evacuees. FLO also operates the Skills/Talent Bank, a computerized record of spouse employment resumes. We are concerned that FLO might be cut back or eliminated under a different Secretary of State. Even now, FLO needs additional space and staff. Therefore, we urge Congress to incorporate the Family Liaison follows:] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Office in the new Act to guarantee the continued existence of this valuable service. In its response to the Forum Report, the Department of State posed the ques- tion of "whether the Foreign Service, with its high international mobility and increasing demands on the time and energy of one family member, can accom- modate the modern, highly-educated American family in which both parents work and both share parenting and homemaking responsibilities". We feel that if the Foreign Service is to be truly representative of American society today, which is stated as one of the basic objectives of the proposed Act, then that accom- modation must be made. In the past two decades, the political, social, and economic roles of women in America has changed significantly. Increased mobility, longevity, education, com- bined with economic necessity, brought about by inflation and soaring divorce rates, have radically altered the American woman's way of life. Census figures show that two-thirds of married women in America are presently employed. It is clear that the American woman needs and expects to have a broad range of work choices and to be able to pursue a meaningful career. The Foreign Service spouse is concerned that long-term international mobility, combined with struc- tural barriers to employment will continue to exclude her from establishing her own economic base through a career, or, at the minimum, through recent work experience. Pressures for spouse employment will continue to mount and must be met with imaginative programs. No matter how earnest the desire to become economically independent through her own paid employment, many Foreign Service wives will sacrifice the earning potential of their most productive years in helping their families make unend- ing cross-cultural adjustments and in voluntary community responsibilities. The Foreign Service homemaker is a vital resource abroad, enriching the overseas communities with thousands of hours of donated service. For these women, divorce exacts a heavy toll. Our Association is deeply con- cerned about the hardships of the many divorced Foreign Service wives who are left after long years of unpaid government service abroad with no employ- ment record, no modern skills, no Social Security, no shared annuity, no survivor benefits, and exorbitantly expensive medical insurance. In order to protect these women, the Foreign Affairs agencies must recognize earned rights for spouses and former spouses to survivor benefits and shared pensions. We have received support on this point from the Honorable Loy W. Henderson in a letter which we would like to submit for the Record. Ambassador Hender- son says in part: "Most Foreign Service wives have spent their lives in accordance with ground rules laid down by the government. Government regulations "discouraged" them from seeking employment overseas. Until 1972 they were graded annually along with their husbands. Although no longer thus graded, the overwhelming majority of Foreign Service wives, realizing that their cooperation with their husband in a spirit of helpfulness adds to his effectiveness, have continued to work with him as a partner for the American government. "If, after years of joint work with her husband, the marriage of a Foreign Service wife should end in divorce, she has at present no "earned" rights. If the same woman were a widow, she would be provided for ; if only a "former wife", she is a nonperson so far as the government is concerned. "These women have given up the productive years of their lives following their husbands around the globe. It seems to me that they have clearly `earned their rights' and that the time has come for the government to honor such rights." Moreover, we are concerned about the effects on families of OMB's proposed cuts in the current budget. The Congressionally-mandated Hayes Study shows that the middle and lower ranks receives lower pay than the Civil Service for equivalent work. Yet money for pay parity as well as funds for allowances al- ready ? authorized by Congress would be denied. These costs will be absorbed by the family members, exaccerbating family problems. Although an employee has the option to resign if family concerns so dictate, let us consider the costs to the system. Not only does it cost more than $25,000 to test and train a new Foreign Service officer, but the accelerated loss of seasoned employees with expertise, languages, and, above all, personal contacts accumulated over the years could become a hemorrhage of irreplaceable assets. We do not feel that it is appropriate for the AAFSW to take a position on the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 as a whole. We do feel that any new Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Act should fully recognize the unique sacrifices land adjustments required of Foreign Service families so as to make clear the justification for the Secretary's authority to help families in special ways. I have with me today two of my colleagues, both Foreign Service wives, Marcia Curran, Chairman of the Forum Committee on Employment and Career Development, and Patricia Ryan, Chairman of the Forum Committee on Retire- ment who have submitted reports on their areas for the record. The three of us will be happy to respond to questions. REPORT BY MARCIA CURRAN, FORUM COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT AND DEPENDENT EMPLOYMENT Many Foreign Service dependents wish to provide for their own economic security through employment. They find it difficult to sacrifice jobs, tenure and pension rights in the United States to face limited employment abroad. It is the continuous geographic mobility as well as bureaucratic restrictions on employ- ment which put the Foreign Service family member who wishes to work at a special disadvantage. Jobs abroad are scarce. Local work laws frequently mean that the spouse must look to the U.S. Mission for employment opportunities ; yet, all such jobs are temporary, low in pay, carry no promotion potential, earn to credit toward government status and offer no adequate retirement program. It is these circum- stances which justify more flexible and open employment programs for Foreign Service dependents. The Department of State, the International Communication Agency and the Agency for International Development have begun to recognize the need for such programs, despite the long history of discouraging married women from working. This is evident in recent actions and in sections of the proposed Act. Encouraged by legislative authorization the Department has expedited, through the A-1/A-2 regulations, a program which could open up employment on local economies for official American family members. It has held widely attended career counseling workshops at the Foreign Service institute, and has begun to set up a Skills/Talent Bank to assist spouses in their search for employ- ment. As a pilot program, it has approved spouse participation on a space avail- able basis in FSI functional training courses; ICA and AID have offered to do the same for some of their training programs. These employment programs are discussed more fully in our recent Report on Dependent Employment which we wish to submit for the record. Resistance to spouse employment Unfortunately, there seems to be considerable attitudinal resistance to the idea of spouse employment among some members of the Foreign Service community. Marguerite Cooper King of the Women's Action Organization has carefully described, in testimony before the House Committees earlier, the situation faced by working women in the State Department and other Foreign Affairs agencies. From her testimony it is clear that women, and most Foreign Service spouses are women, have a very long way to go to achieve equality of opportunity even if they are already within the career system. AAFSW is grateful to WAO for its dedicated efforts to expand dependent employment opportunities, as it is to the Foreign Service Secretaries' organization for working toward improvement in the treatment of women employees. We are saddened when we hear that Foreign Service staff, and particularly secretaries, are worried about job security and assignment opportunity because of spouse employment. We do not believe that spouse employment presents a threat to job opportunity for career members of the Foreign Affairs community. AAFSW will always be among the first to defend the rights of the Staff Corps against any real and substantiated inequities. In this connection, we fully sup- port the Staff Corps' request, stated in the AFSA testimony before the House, for the opportunity to take orientation, language training, and professional train- ing for upward mobility. There are those in the Department of State who would discourage the trend toward families with two Foreign Service career employees, commonly termed the "tandem couple" because of the desire to find a pair of tandem assignments at the same post thus permitting families to live together. Some in the Depart- ment look upon this as a problem ; AAFSW prefers to look upon it as a solution 50-236-80-22 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 to changes taking place In American society. In the United States at the present time two out of three married women are working, and that trend is growing. Through tandem assignments the Department and the other Foreign Affairs agencies not only make significant savings in administrative costs, but also provide employment to both members of a two-career family. Employment op- portunities are thereby expanded for those who are able to qualify for the career services. It is our conviction that such a view of tandem assignments acknowledges the present and long-run direction of American society. To dis- courage it, or to fail to encourage the two-career Foreign Service couple is to misread the future, and to substitute what is perceived as one problem for another. On the other hand we have noted that if the spouse wants to practice a skill which is not perceived to threaten traditional Foreign Service career categories, there seems to be less resistance. For example, the Medical Division has re- cently endorsed the use in Foreign Service posts of the professional skills of spouses who are clinical social workers. A few months ago these spouses created the Association of American Foreign Service Clinical Social Workers, and took their cases to the Department. The resourcefulness of the spouses, combined with the growing awareness in the Medical Division of the need for such serv- ices abroad, resulted in this employment breakthrough. AAFSW will continue to search for ways to expand work opportunities and will, at the same time, search for ways to reduce resistance to, and ungrounded fears of these job programs. Since pressures for more dependent job opportu- nities will inevitably increase, we hope that the Foreign Affairs agencies will actively work to create a more positive climate. Section-by-section comment on the act Sec. 332. We believe that this section might be the appropriate place to add language which would protect the Foreign Service spouse or dependent who must give up a government position in order to accompany the Foreign Service employee abroad. Reemployment right and/or credit toward government status should be offered in this section. Civil Service status, a kind of reemployment right, can never be earned in temporary jobs. It is earned only in permanent jobs and then only if the person remains in such a position for three years or more without a break in service of more than three days. The mobility of Foreign Service life and the fact that all government jobs abroad are temporary (unless the person is already a mem- ber of the career service), make earning status extremly difficult. At. present a spouse can work for as many as five years in a temporary job and still not earn status. Sec. 333. The language, "renewable limited. appointments", eliminates one inequitable aspect of the present employment situation for spouses. Under the old system a dependent could have only five years of cumulative temporary employment. This designation does away with that five-year time limit. The language at the end of sec. 333(a) appears to allow flexibility in the choice of pay scales for American family member employees. This is an improve- ment over State's interpretation of present law authorizing American' family member employment in certain vacant foreign national positions. In our Report on Dependent Employment (March 12, 1979) we outlined the inequities of paying local wages to American family members in foreign national positions : at one end of the scale you have wages below U.S. minimum wage ; and at the other you have wages higher than that of comparable career Foreign Service personnel. We continue to take the position, as does WAO, that all official Americans employed by the Foreign Affairs agencies abroad be paid according to American pay scales. This foreign national/American family member program took a long time to get off the ground. Now that the program has gone worldwide, fifty positions have been designated and twenty dependents hired as AFMs. We hope that the Foreign Affairs agencies will give it more publicity and more emphasis. Sec. 333(a) refers to the employment of family members "abroad in positions to which career Foreign Service personnel are not customarily assigned." It is our understanding after discussion with Management that this language does not preclude the possibility that dependents may, on a temporary basis, fill posi- tions which are usually filled by Foreign Service personnel. If the Committee in- terprets this language differently, we would want to seek changes. Some of the more interesting jobs dependents are offered abroad are those which usually are filled by career personnel, but are vacant for several months Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 or longer, or are in less desirable posts and do not attract career personnel. It is our understanding and hope that the language of this subsection and that of subsection 333(b) permit the temporary hire of qualified dependents to fill such career positions. In this way no career personnel will be displaced, the Depart- ment's needs will be served (often at a lower cost) and dependents will be offered needed job opportunities. This would be no threat to the job security of career personnel. Sec. 701 (b). "The Secretary may ... provide to members of families of such personnel [all Foreign Affairs personnel) in anticipation of their assignment abroad or while abroad . . . (2) functional training for anticipated prospective employment under section 333." This is new and we wholeheartedly support it. Dependents can fulfill vital, short-term staffing needs if they are trained to do so. Under the present operating rules for this program some difficulties do arise: admission of dependents on a space available basis means that up to the last minute there is uncertainty about spaces ; it also means that very few spaces are available for family members ; initially, only the consular and the budget and fiscal courses, not the general services not the personnel courses were opened to spouse participation. In the next round at FSI the general services course will be made available. ICA and AID are also opening functional training courses to dependents on a space available basis. Sec. 705 (b). This section authorizes the Skills/Talent Bank. We believe that the first line should read : "The Secretary shall facilitate the employment of spouses of Foreign Service personnel . . ." It is our concern that under a dif- ferent Secretary of State the Skills Bank may be phased out or starved for resources. Even at the present time, it needs additional staff and resource support to do its job. The Coordinator of the Skills/Bank holds only a parttime, temporary position (a six-month appointment). Sec. 705(b) (3) refers to assisting spouses in obtaining "overseas employ- ment." We agree.with AFSA's testimony before the House that the word "over- seas" should be removed if it means that Skills Bank personnel cannot counsel the spouse for stateside employment. -It is just as essential to assist a dependent for employment in the States as overseas. The two go hand-in-hand. If in fact the Skills Bank operation is to serve the whole system, there can be.no logical separa- tion between stateside and overseas jobs counseling in the case of the Foreign Service dependent. We are often asked if any of these programs assist male spouses. The answer is an emphatic "yes". There is, of course,'no distinction made on the basis of sex. It may interest you to know that-at the present time there are more than 25 male spouses represented in the Skills/Bank. Four will have gone through functional training courses at the Foreign Service Institute. Additional recommendations We would like to raise a: number of matters which are not addressed by the Act, but which we feel must receive attention. We recommend that the Foreign Affairs agencies give serious consideration to the following : (1) Need for administrative or legislative action to permit Foreign Service spouses to earn credit toward government employment status on an incremental basis. The Department has offered to assist us through cooperation with the Office of Personnel Management to find a solution to this issue. We think we are slowly making progress. (2) Need to make available on a regular basis midlevel and senior level positions for spouse employment. The present system which offers nothing higher than an FS-8 is an anachronism, a hangover from the days when tem- porary jobs were always clerical. Regulations for temporary hires should he changed to permit hiring at higher grade levels. The Foreign Service agencies should look into the possibility of making parttime permanent GS positions available overseas for spouses hired at post.. (We also recommend parttime permanents here in Washington.) (3) Need to look for ways to recognize and compensate the highly involved U.S. Missions and community projects abroad, and without whose contributions of time and talent the quality of our presence abroad would be vastly diminished. (We would like to submit for the Record at this time the results of AAFSW's Time-Use Survey.) A first step to recognize this contribution is in the works: a senior spouse job description has been developed ; it represents a career focused, skill oriented approach to diplomatic spouse activities. We would like to see more steps taken in this area. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 (4) Need for adequate retirement programs for spouses working in temporary, parttime or limited hire positions. We would like to see the renewable limited appointments permit participation in the Civil Service retirement system. Those who have left Civil Service jobs behind should be allowed to continue their participation in the Civil Service -system while working abroad. Senior spouses who volunteer their efforts full time performing diplomatic and com- munity services abroad should be permitted to pay into Social Security. Some of these needs could be met by administrative regulations. Others will require legislation. For the AAFSW, spouse employment and career develop- ment will continue to be a priority concern. So long as these issues are manifest throughout American society, the Foreign Service community will feel their effects and must respond one way or another. The demonstrated interest and concern by Members of this Committee earlier have already played an important part in. the progress that has been made. We will continue to seek your support. We know how effective it can be. THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT AND ANNUITIES I want to consider the problems of the divorced Foreign Service wife, and to begin by reminding you of .some facts. First, the concept of no-fault divorce has swept the country. There is no longer any defense against a unilateral decision by one partner to end a marriage. Second, a recent study by the University of Texas projects that 38 percent of the young women now in their late twenties or early thirties will be divorced at some point in their lives. Third, the divorce rate in marriages that have lasted longer than fifteen years has doubled in the past decade. Fourth, despite mythology to the contrary, alimony is awarded in only 14 per- cent of divorces. To make matters worse, fewer than half the women receive payments with any regularity after the first year. In any case, payments cease when the husband dies, often leaving a divorced woman with desperately little money at the exact time in her life when she most needs it. Indeed, the fastest growing group of persons subsisting under the poverty line are older women. Last, I draw your attention to a. statistic that currently is not known : the divorce rate in the Foreign 'Service. For whatever reason, the State Department has never kept any record of this information. No one suggests that whether a particular employee has been divorced should be on the public record, but surely these data should be kept in numerical form to show how the Foreign Service, in comparison with other ways of life, affects marriages. The Family Liaison coun- selors tell us that much of their time is spent dealing with divorce cases. Keeping these. facts in mind, let us move on to the difficult problem of annuities for divorced Foreign Service spouses. Our approach is based on a concept of marriage as an economic partnership of co-equals. Contributions to this partner- ship may be in earned wages or in unpaid activities such as those traditionally delegated to the homemaker and mother. In assessing the value of these activities a Maryland court in 1975 awarded damages of $1,500,000 to a man and his two children for the loss of their wife and mother. The court assessed the value of the mother's services to the two children for a period of eight or nine years at $60,349. Society, however, generally ignores the economic contribution of the homemaker in questions of divorce. Our view is, further, that the Foreign Service wife has special impediments to economic independence, resulting exclusively from the husband's employment. Cultural, legal and linguistic barriers prevent her from working overseas. When she can work, constant international mobility usually prevents her from vesting in any sort of retirement plan. Earlier government policy, as you heard from Ambassador Henderson, discouraged her from working at a paid job. It is the existence of these unique conditions which are the grounds for granting special relief to Foreign Service wives, not necessarily granted to members of other government services. We do not feel that we are in any sense better than other groups of wives, but rather that no other group shares all the ways in which we are disadvantaged in attaining economic self-sufficiency. The United States government has an obligation to compensate wives for this loss of opportunity to create their own economic base. This obligation is independent of the marital relationship. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 In addition, Foreign Service wives frequently perform hours of unpaid service for the government. Our time-use survey shows that wives of middle- and upper- rank officers donate from one to four weeks work per month. One ambassador's wife logged the equivalent of two full-time jobs in activities related to her hus- band's employment. There is no present method for reimbursing wives for their work, because there is no satisfactory means of rating the work. Let us turn now to the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979, Section 821(b) (2). We are grateful to see this provision included which would require permission of the affected spouse to waive his or her survivor annuity. We would, however, like to see the protection extended to former spouses who have resided with the participants on assignments in the Service for the requisite ten years. Next, let me simply mention Section 864(b) which authorizes payments of sums otherwise due to an annuitant or a participant to another person pursuant to the terms of a court decree of divorce. These provisions are similar to those in P.L. 95-366, enacted in 1978 for the Civil Service. This section begins to nibble at the problem. However, the court order approach is not satisfactory to us. I will discuss the reasons for this in a moment. Now we turn to a section which has disappeared. An earlier draft or the bill contained a proposal to deal with the question of a survivor annuity for a divorced spouse, again pursuant to a court-ordered property settlement. It required that the former spouse be married to the participant for at least ten years during the latter's employment in the Foreign Service. OMB requested that the section be excised and placed in a separate bill. The Administration would prefer to consider the issue under the rubric of pensions in the Presidential Commission on Pension Policy. While this decision may be appealing from the standpoint of rationalizing effort, it is dismaying for divorced or divorcing Foreign service wives because it will cause a three- to four-year delay at best. Some of these wives have almost nothing. Some live in terror that they will not die soon enough before rampant inflation or the death of their former husbands reduces them to abject penury. They need relief now. There are grave disadvantages to the court-ordered approach to these issues adopted by the Department. There is the enormous expense of access to the courts, especially for appeals. There is the lack of precedent for awarding parts of pensions and survivor annuities. There are widely varying divorce laws from state-to-state which would result in different women receiving widely differing awards of a federal benefit for the same deprivations. There is little or no awareness among jurists of the special problems faced by Foreign Service wives. Furthermore, these women are frequently cut off from community roots or con- nections, and often rely on their husbands' lawyers or on ones they recommend. For these reasons, we greatly prefer Rep. Schroeder's bill, H.R. 2857, which would automatically give a former spouse who was married to a participant for at least ten years a pro rated share of the retirement and survivor's annuity. The exact amount of the former spouse's annuity would depend on the number of years of marriage that overlap with credited years of service toward retirement. The only drawback of Rep. Schroeder's bill is that it does not solve the problem of those already divorced, especially those whose participant or annuitant spouse has died. A possible solution may lie in the grantee approach used in P.L. 94-350 in 1.976 which gave widows of Foreign Service employees retired before 1960 a minimum annuity. If Rep. Schroeder's bill were made retroactive to cover existing former spouses, present second spouses of participants or annuitants would be adversely affected and would require some relief. Second marriages made in the future, however, would be protected by the, knowledge of the exact entitlement of the former spouse. I would like to discuss one last matter, the extraordinary hardship visited on the divorced Foreign Service wife by the withdrawal of medical insurance. At present, if she applies within a specified period after her divorce, her former carrier must accept her without a physical examination. However, she receives only limited hospitalization coverage, usually excepting existing health prob- lems, and is charged up to $1,600 per year for this inadequate coverage. Because so many health conditions are caused by or exacerbated by inadequate medical care overseas, this is a particular cruelty. We would like to have health insurance renegotiated-to provide a better deal for divorced women so that the costs of the actuarial risk are spread over the entire system. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 The expense of rectifying these inequities is negligible. On the other hand, the continued failure to protect these older women has hidden costs: 'payments for welfare and food stamps, the loss of tax revenues through deductions taken by family members who may contribute support, and increased costs to the health delivery system of the higher incidence of illness associated with poverty. There are human costs as well. The bitter sense of betrayal by a system which appears to exploit and discard participants is a contagion, spreading distrust and lack of commitment that will never appear on a cost/benefit analysis or a zero-based budget. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE WOMEN, Washington, D.C., March 12, 1979. Hon. CYRUS R. VANCE, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY : In response to your reply of September 8, 1977, to the Report on the Concerns of Foreign Service Spouses and Families, the Associa- tion of American Foreign Service Women is pleased to submit'the Forum's most recent study on the dependent employment situation. Reports on other matters of concern to the Forum, such as mental health, orientation, and communication between families and the Department, are being prepared. However, because of the high priority and timeliness of the employment issue, we wish to submit this report separately at this time. Other reports will be sent along to you as they are readied. Your personal interest in, and understanding of, the issues raised by the Forum have already given impetus to significant improvements in the life of the Foreign Service family. We greatly appreciate your support and look forward to a con- tinuing and fruitful dialogue. Sincerely, LESLEY. DORMAN, President, Association of American Foreign Service Women. TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, A REPORT ON DEPENDENT EMPLOYMENT FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE WOMEN FORUM COMMITTEE ON THE CONCERNS OF FOREIGN SERVICE SPOUSES AND FAMILIES We are encouraged that the Department recognizes the serious problems facing Foreign Service spouses, both male and female, who wish to pursue careers ap- propriate to their interests, experience and educational. background. It is in- creasingly clear, that inadequate employment for spouses is adversely affecting assignments, efficiency and morale in the Foreign Service. That -men want careers of their own has never been questioned. Many female spouses now also want the opportunity to. have careers of their own. This is not purely a 'matter of economic need, although that plays a strong role in times of rapid inflation. Women, now more than ever before, want the satisfaction of an independent career and the security a career provides them for weathering the uncertainties of middle and later years. We are grateful to the Department for its efforts to improve employment op- portunities for Foreign Service dependents. The setting up of a Skills/Talent Bank in the Family Liaison Office, the successful negotiation of new regulations governing employment of diplomatic and consular dependents in this country (A-1 and A-2 visa holders), the pilot implementation of Sec. 401 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FY 1979) which converts some foreign national slots to American possibilities and morals at post. The Family Liaison Office itself is, of great assistance in answering questions and providing advice on em- ployment programs. The Career Workshops offer positive assistance for reentering the work force. PIT (Parttime/Intermittent/Temporary) and contract jobs can add to employment choices. Two programs recently initiated reserve support : the stateside use of the 90-day security clearance waiver to permit hiring spouses for emergency short-term needs of the Department, and the Service Institute so that they might be employed to fill administrative and consular needs abroad. This report discusses the above programs and offers suggestions for changes. It will then. turn to other key issues which the Forum-and the AAFSW feel must be addressed by the Foreign Affairs Agencies in order to meet the needs Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 of Foreign Service dependents in today's world. These other issues include the special employment problems of the spouses of senior diplomats, the need for spouse participation in individual retirement benefit programs, and the need to earn career status. The Skills/Talent Bank.-We applaud the Department's funding of it half- time position for six months to implement the Skills/Talent Bank and to promote its use within the Foreign Affairs Agencies and among firms doing business abroad. It is, however, unclear what will happen when the six-month period ends in June 1979. We do not see how the Skills Bank can continue to func- tion as a useful service if there is not at least one part-time employee to man- age it. We hope the Department would agree with this point of view and fund a permanent part-time position for the Skills Bank. The Skills Bank Coordinator not only answers requests for names of persons with geographic availabilities and skills, but also promotes the Bank with international firms and organiza- tions hiring abroad. She is available to answer questions and counsel those going abroad on work opportunities at particular posts. In addition, the current Skills Bank Coordinator, working approximately thirty-two hours a week, has developed a job information resource packet for mailing to all posts, coordinates the semi-annual Career Planning Workshops at the Foreign Service Institute (discussed separately), conducts monthly meetings to assist spouses returning to the D.C. job market from overseas, and recruits spouses to fill PIT positions in the Department and for the pilot training program at FSI. These efforts must be continued to make the Skills/Talent Bank the valuable service that it should be, both to-the Foreign Affairs Agencies and to the Foreign Service family. As an adjunct to the services of the Skills Bank, a repository of full-up-to-date information on the employment situation at each post would enable every spouse going abroad to obtain valuable information on her/his job prospects. In some cases, the spouse/dependent might be able by using this information to land a job even before arriving at post, thereby making a happier transition to a new location. While we recognize that post reports and the Overseas Briefing Center generally have some information available, it is often incom- plete and out-of-date. We urge the Department to set up a system for gathering this information on a frequent basis and to make it available both in the Over- seas Briefing Center and in the Skills Bank. We recommend that posts collect this type of information by entering into,a contract with a qualified dependent who will also seek job openings in the private sector for official American dependents. A-1, A-2 visas and reciprocity.-The Department is to be congratulated on the dispatch with which it ,accomplished changes in the regulations permitting A-1 and A-2 visa holders in the U.S. to accept employment. We hope that the dependents of many embassies and consulates in the U.S. will take advantage of this new opportunity, so that our own dependents in the reciprocal countries may easily obtain permission to work. Although we do not have much informa- tion on the effectiveness of the new reporting requirements concerning am- bassadorial permission for dependents wishing to. ;accept work on the local economy, we feel that the new process should represent a change for the better. Conversion of foreign national positions to FN/AFM.-We appreciate the difficulties encountered by the Department in its efforts to comply with Sec. 401 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of FY 1979. We hope that the Department, as it works out the final regulations will support the intent of the law which is to expand employment opportunities for family members of U.S. personnel assigned abroad. But for a few exceptions, the kinds of positions which were identified at pilot posts offer low-level jobs both in the skills demanded and the pay offered. The former may be a result of the fact that the pilot posts had a very short time to respond to the request for this information. There is some indication that at least in one post not all foreign affairs elements were consulted thoroughly and, therefore, did not designate jobs which might become available. It is possible that with more time to consult and focus on the program at post more positions and more interesting positions might have been selected. Because, according to the present plan, the FN/AFM positions will remain on the local pay scale, many positions will pay far less than even the present U.S. minimum wage. In some cases the wage will be less than half of the poverty level wage. In a few geographic areas, such as the Persian Gulf and Europe, wages paid at the local rates will be higher than comparable positions in the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 U.S. It appears to us that in the interest of equity all FN/AFM positions when held by an American dependent should follow American pay schedules. We believe that this is what the law intends when it refers to compensation prac- tices "consistent with the public interest." If this program mainly offers low- level jobs at pay scales unfair to Americans, then the program will not make a significant difference in the overall job picture and will not carry out the main intent of the law. If the Department determines that under the present language of the law it cannot legally pay American dependents in FN/AFM positions on an American pay scale, then we urge the Department t(, seek appro- priate changes in the law. Career Workshops.-We wish to underline the contribution made by the Career Workshops conducted at FSI by the Overseas Briefing Center and the Family Liaison Office. These workshops have provided invaluable guidance for those attempting to reenter the work force both here and abroad. Not only have the courses been extremely well run and well attended, but they have also created support groups for those trying to break into today's tight job market. The fact that the Foreign Service dependent must continually interrupt her/his career with each new assignment makes finding suitable employment difficult, if not impossible, in the States as well as overseas. Furthermore, it is not uncom- mon for a potential employer to turn down an applicant just because as a Foreign Service dependent she/he looks like a short-timer. The Career Work- shops offer the spouse, whether returning or departing, an essential service in facing yet another job search. We urge the Department to continue funding these two-day workshop programs twice yearly. Pit and contract programs.-We look forward to learning the results of the Director General's inquiry into the pros and cons of expanding the PIT pro- gram and of encouraging the use of non-personal service contracts and con- sultants drawn from the dependent community. We would welcome informa- tion on any expansion of these programs in the past year. Given the fact that there are spouses of U.S. employees abroad who have professional backgrounds in economics, political science, journalism and other areas, and who could per- form important services in those areas, we suggest that the Department give full consideration to employing these individuals on contract or as consultants to meet the changing needs of the Department's work abroad. As the PIT program is now designed, it presents a number of problems which we would like to bring to the attention of the Department : appointments are limited.to one year, followed by a three-month break in employment before the employee can be given the same position again ; the position can be termi- nated at any time; grade levels with rare exceptions are limited to FSS-8 and below ; PIT jobs offer no career potential ; and, unlike DOD hiring programs, no preference is given to official dependents. We propose that these deficiencies be examined. Specifically, we propose that the Department offer PIT positions at all grade levels, that the three-month break in employment be eliminated, that positions be offered for two-year periods, that official U.S. civilian de- pendents be given preference in this and other hiring programs, and the PIT employees be eligible for promotion and step increases. The question of status will be dealt with later in this report. Two new Department programs.-The Forum is keenly interested in two programs recently approved by the Department : the temporary employment of Foreign Service spouses on an emergency basis under security clearance waiver of Executive Order 10450; and training for a pilot group of spouses in regular Foreign Service Institute administrative and consular courses on a space avail- able basis. We fully support the first program and look forward to being of service in this way to the Department. The security clearance time lag works a hardship both on the Department and the individual waiting for final clear- ance. We urge the Department to apply the security clearance waiver to summer hire of teenage dependents. . As to the second program, we also strongly endorse the Department's idea of training spouses to handle designated administrative and consular tasks. Under this program spouses with appropriate training at post can fill staffing gaps, thus eliminating possible TDY expenditures and providing continuity of service. Such a program can also contribute markedly to the improvement of mo- rale at post, not only because it will increase employment opportunities, but because it will demonstrate a realization on the part of the Department that the skills and experience of dependents are a valuable resource. We support the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 implementation of these programs by the Department and will urge the other Foreign Affairs Agencies to follow suit. OTHER KEY ISSUES The Forum is encouraged by the steps which the Department has taken to try to expand the employment opportunities for dependents abroad and at home. We view these adjustments to the increasing demands of women and male dependents for a fair chance in the job market as a very important begin- ning. Eventually, however, the issue of career status and benefits, and of em- ployment for spouses of senior officials will have to be met. Retirement.-Retirement puts the Foreign Service spouse in a particularly difficult situation. She/he is ill prepared for later years because of mobility and the failure of many job programs abroad to offer adequate retirement bene- fits. Even some U.S. Government jobs abroad do not provide retirement programs (i.e., English language teaching, commissary, and other contract work). The spouse who devotes full time to supporting the Foreign Service Officer's rep- resentational activities receives no monetary or retirement benefits in her/his own right. The spouse who leaves a job with paid-in retirement benefits in the States may find a job abroad, but it will probably not permit her/him to con- tinue to pay into the retirement program of the agency which had employed her/him at home. The person who had been employed by a company where the retirement benefits were fully paid by the company may lose all retirement credit with that company. The dependent who left a retirement program at home usually must enter a different program when working abroad, but might not be in any program long enough to qualify for adequate benefits or any bene- fits at all. These are intolerable situations, and ones which, in some cases, may require new legislation in order to give the Foreign Service spouse a fair chance at earning decent retirement benefits. One suggestion which deserves study would be to permit the dependent spouse, even while unemployed, the option of paying into an independent retirement account or the Social Security system while abroad. (To offer adequate retirement income, these programs should permit larger contributions and benefits than at present.) Those who have a stake in another retirement system should be permitted to continue to pay into that system if they so desire. Two concepts are central to understanding this problem : it is essential to recognize that the non-working person has the same retirement needs as the working person, and that each individual needs to have retirement benefits in her/his own right. We urge the Department to take the lead in requesting appropriate changes in laws and- regulations to permit spouses more oppor- tunities and greater flexibility for participation in retirement programs. We also recommend that all jobs connected with official missions abroad and held by official dependents offer adequate retirement benefit programs. The Forum strongly supports the proposal to make Foreign Service spouses who are divorced or legally separated eligible fot inclusion, along with Civil Service spouses, under P.L. 95-366. This law permits a spouse to claim a portion of the employee spouse's pension at retirement. The proposal meets an urgent need for those spouses now facing this circumstance. Employment for spouses of senior officials.-Spouses of senior diplomatic officials face special employment problems. The officers position may make employment both within and outside of the mission awkward. Many may feel that under these circumstances the best use of their talents is in the representa- tional area and that relinquishing these activities for other employment would not be in the best interests of the United States. Appropriate steps should be taken to recognize their efforts. Although we do not support the idea of honorary awards, we do support the request made by wives attending the recent Chiefs of Mission Regional Conference in Columbo (State 00317, Jan. 19, 1979) that COM spouses be given a job description which could be used as a model for inclusion in their resumes. There should be a form of appropriate certification, if requested by the spouse, for her/his efforts. Naturally, no spouse should feel compelled to fulfill the duties outlined in the job description. She/he should be free to accept or reject the traditional role. We feel that those spouses who accept the responsibilities of the role as out- lined in the proposed guidelines should be compensated by receiving a salary based on a percentage of the employee spouse's salary. Along with this should go Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 the right to earn. retirement benefits, or at least to pay into an independent retire- ment account. We realize that this idea will require serious study and changes in the law before it can be put into effect. Nevertheless, we think it has great merit. It would permit official recognition of the dedicated and expert services rendered by the spouse who takes on this traditional role. It would permit monetary reward to satisfy the spouse who objected to the two-for-one arrangement but who could not comfortably avoid it. We hope that this proposal will receive serious Depart- mental consideration and support. Career issue.-The modern Foreign Service spouse who works in various U.S. government positions abroad, be they PIT, contract, or some other form of direct-hire, is, under present regulations, denied status regardless of how long she/he has worked for the Government. Under the plan for the new FN/AFM positions and PIT positions, the dependent is allowed to work for one year with a possible one-year extension. Present regulations permit acquisition of status even in career jobs only after three years of basically unbroken service, and under no circumstances when working in direct-hire, FN/AFM, PIT or contract positions. Thus. the limitations attached to such employment discriminates un- fairly against a class of persons who have practically no other choice for employment but to work for the U.S. government. The fact that this employment offers no hope for career status also adversely affects the individual's employ- ment opportunities in the U.S. Since the U.S. government, the largest employer in the Washington area, makes status a qualification for many positions, the Foreign Service dependent who returns without status is cut out of much of the job market. The AAFSW Forum plans to do all it can to have regulations adopted which permit Foreign Service dependents to accumulate Civil Service status through credit for each month worked for the Government, both in the States and abroad, regardless of breaks in service. We will also request that this change be made retroactive. We hope that the Department will actively support us in this en- deavor. It is our belief that, in the short and long run, increases in real career opportunities, not just work opportunities, will strengthen the. Foreign Service by making it more attractive to all employees. Spouse employment and career development will continue to be a priority concern of the AAFSW Forum. So long as these concerns are manifest throughout Americtn society as a whole, the Foreign Service community will feel their effects, and must -respond one way or another. We are encouraged that the Department of State has, through its statements and actions, recognized this growing issue. We hope to continue to work with the Department to make needed adjustments, to eliminate inequities in existing and future programs, and to find new ways to expand dependent work and career opportunities. [From the Association of American Foreign Service Women, Washington, D.C., May-June 1978 Newsletter] Time Use Survey: Lots of Hours (By Margaret W. Sullivan) "I knew I worked hard, but I was surprised at how many hours it really was", commented a wife as part of her response to a time-use survey undertaken this year by the Association of American Foreign Service Women Newsletter. The survey documents the hours of unremunerated work spouses contribute to the official functioning of U.S. Missions and delineates the ways these hours are spent. Time use-not opinions about if or how it should or should not be recom- pensed-is all the survey studies. The results do not so much present a new picture as fill-in, highlight and confirm areas of the commonly assumed one. Although some respondents report no involvement at all in the official life of a Mission, a substantial majority contribute .to it in some way. The degree of involvement-except in activities of a. purely community-building nature-is generally related to the employee's position. The unique demands of the specific post and the variations of individuals personalities are also factors in the amounts of time invested. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 . Two findings stand out: Being an Ambassador's wife is frequently a full-time job. An Ambassador's or Charge's wife probably devotes an average 167 hours a month-over four 40-hour work-weeks-to official functions. Some devote much more. The top number reported for 328 hours 30 minutes, or almost 11 hours a day, seven days a week ; enough for two full-time jobs. Being the wife of an officer with representational responsibilities is frequently equivalent to having. at Least a part-time job. The survey suggests that nearly half the wives of officers who have such responsibilities may contribute more put in lmorethan three 120 than 4 and less thn 120 hours a month-more 40-hour work-weeks. An additional fifth of such than The survey was initiated in October 1977 when the questionnaire appeared in the AAFSW Newsletter. A later story about it in the Department of State News- letter elicited a few requests for forms. At a number of posts, the survey form was reprinted and circulated. It is impossible to know, therefore, how many foreign affairs agency dependent spouses saw the form or knew that the survey was being undertaken. Nor is the total number of dependent spouses currently abroad with the various foreign affairs agencies known. Such statistics are not kept by the agencies involved. In 1976, the questionnaire for the AAFSW Forum Report was sent to some 8,000 people. Using a 60/40 abroad and home ratio, this would suggest that nearly 5,000 dependent spouses are at posts at any one time. Educational guesses based on other Departmental statistics tend to confirm this estimate. Clearly, more accurate statistics about spouses are needed. One hundred sixty-nine responses to the survey were received. This number by itself is not statistically sufficient to more than suggest the range of involvement and hours some wives invest. The survey is important, however, as the first docu- mentary study of the subject. Some sub-groups of the response are big enough to be statistically significant. Twenty Ambassadors' and Charge's wives responded, 14.38 percent of such possible responses. This, and the geographical and post-class distribution of this aub-group makes the picture of full-time involvement of wives at the top level of Foreign Service life statistically valid. A log kept in 1957 by an Ambassador's wife was also submitted. Very little has changed at that level. Two posts responded in sufficient numbers that a reasonably accurate profile of the contribution of spouse-time can be drawn for each of them. One,. with a 24 percent response, is a Class 1 Asian post. The other, with a nearly 75 percent response, is a Class 4 post in South America. That the other responses to the questionnaire follow in the same basic pattern of these sets gives greater weight than otherwise might be the case of the profile suggested by the limited number of responses. The number of responses as a whole. is skewed toward spouses who are in- volved.-This is hot .surprising in, a self-selected group of respondents. People doing something are often quicker to talk about it than those who are not. The number of respondents who list their husbands as having representational or representational and post leadership responsibilities outnumber the responses from those whose spouses-do not, three to one. While this may be larger than the ratio in the foreign affairs agencies married population as a whole, it is probably not 'substantially so. (As mentioned, however, observations about over- all numbers must be.educated guestimates rather than statistical fact.) The responses come from 44 posts out of 240 (18.3 percent). The Department classifies its 139 Embassies as Class 1, 2, 3 and 4. There are-103 non-Embassy posts. Responses were distributed among the classes of post as follows : Class 1, 8-44.4 percent. Class 2, 3-17.6 percent. Class 3. 12-42.9 percent. Class 4,12-15.8 percent. Others, 9-8.5 percent. The geographical distribution of responses has two major gaps: Eastern Euro- pean countries and the London-Paris-Rome axis. The responses, therefore, could be and were analyzed to see if class of post makes any marked difference in time involvement for wives. A break-down by geographical area was not possible and was not attempted. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 344 Other variables that appear to affect the time wives invest-the isolation, and fish-bowl factors, and the political "sexiness" of certain posts-could only be judged on the basis of common knowledge. Were a broader-based, more detailed study to be undertaken at a later date, these aspects would need to be more care- fully addressed. Single responses were received from 24 posts. Multiple responses came from 20 posts. A block of 13 came from an Embassy and two of its Consulate Generals. Two male dependent spouses participated in the survery. Responses were so- licited from any dependent spouse at post without regard to which agency or service the employee works for. A number of responses from military wives were received from the two posts which sent in substantial replies. Some women mentioned being regularly or intermittently employed themselves. Not enough information was consistantly available about this aspect, however, to draw any conclusions. For this sample, percentages and average numbers of hours, are misleading. It seems more relevant to look at clusters of times reported and to talk in terms of 40-hour work-weeks. One hundred sixty hours constitutes a full four 40-hour work-weeks per month. Percentages and averages are cited primarily for those sub-groups with great enough responses to be meaningful in those terms. Respondents were asked to keep a log for a month and from that to answer five questions giving the number of hours per month spent : preparing for and entertaining at home ; attending official functions hosted by other Americans and host or third country nationals ; assisting in official activities such as updating post reports, price surveys, escorting visitors, etc. ; other time-consumers the respondent considers official rather than personal ; and community building/ supporting activities within the Mission. They were also asked to identify the post and give some general information about their spouse's position in it. THE TOTAL PICTURE Individuals reported monthly totals of unremunerated work time contributed to the official functioning of U.S. Missions abroad varing from 0 to 328.5 hours a month. Including those who reported no involvement, just over a quarter of the respondents reported under 39 hours per month total contribution-less than one work-week. More than half reported over 40 hours and less than 120 (between one and three work-weeks). Nearly a quarter of the responses reported over three work-weeks (120 hours) per month. Ten women reported over 200 hours for the month surveyed. A number submitted logs to substantiate their reports. There seems to be only minor variation in the pattern of the hours reported among the Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 posts. Constituent posts show a larger proportion of responses in the 80-119 hour range: Whether this is because the posts are smaller or because of the particular jobs of the husbands of those who took time to respond, is impossible to say. Among those women whose husbands have representational responsibilities, nearly two-thirds reported more than one and less than three. work-weeks total time (compared to just over half of the total sample). More than a quarter of them reported over three work-weeks while about 10 percent reported less than one work-week and only one person in this category reported no involvement at all. Conversely, of women whose husbands have no representational responsi- bilities (about a quarter of the sample) well over half reported less than one work-week's total contribution and over 10 percent reported no involvement of any kind The patterns of total time distribution of each of the two posts with substan- tial responses shows a similar picture, although at both posts the proportion of responses under one work-week is larger (38 percent of the Class 1 post, 34.2 percent of the Class 4 post). The hour range at the Class 1 post was from 0 to 309 although the second highest reported there was 169. At the Class 4 post, the range is from 0 to 235 hours per month. Of those whose husbands have repre- sentational/leadership responsibilities at the Class 1 post, 59.25 percent report between one and three work-weeks per month while 22 percent report over 120 hours for the month. At the Class 4 post, the same group reports 85 percent between 40 and 119 hours while 13 percent report over 4 work-weeks a month. Of those whose spouses have no representational responsibilities, at the Class 1 post, 23.1 percent show no involvement, 46.2 percent under one work-week and 30.8 percent between one and three work-weeks per month. At the Class 4 post, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 1.3.3 percent of the wives whose husbands have no representational responsi- bilities report no involvement while 46.6 percent contribute less than 39 hours a month and 40 percent report between 40 and 120 hours a month. The Ambassadors' and Charges' wives, predictably, report larger number of hours. The totals range from 54 to 338.5 hours for the month. The average is just over 167 hours (more than four 40-hour work-weeks in one month). The wife who reports only 54 hours for the month surveyed, however, notes special circumstances which indicate that 130 hours per month would be more nearly normal for her. The distribution of time these women report is 30 percent between one and three work-weeks, 30 percent between three and four work- weeks, and 40 percent over four work-weeks per month. While the responses do not always indicate other specific leadership positions beyond Principal Office and Deputy, occasionally internal evidence pinpoints an AID Mission Director's, Defense Attache's or an ICA Director's wife. Uniformly, these women are among those reporting the most hours. The same is true to a lesser extent for Section Chief's and Cultural Affairs Officer's wives. However, not enough of these were pinpointed to make statistical analysis possible. Com- ments suggest that the time demands of posts are cyclical and seasonal. There seems to be about as much variation in the time ranges of posts within a single class as there is between posts of different class. This suggests that each post has its own dynamic or that there are other dynamics that the survey did not bring out. The length of time a person has been at post also seems to affect the amount of time spent on official activities. A few women mentioned deliberately restricting involvement either to spend time with children or to pursue other careers. No one cited these as reasons for total non-involvement although it may be the case. None of the "non-participants" gave reasons. One woman wrote "Even though I expect to start work next month, I antici- pate that I will still spend about 50 hours a month on representational and com- munity activities". In looking at those responses which are well over four 40-hour work-weeks per month (235 hours, 240 hours, 260 hours, 273 hours, 294 hours, 309 hours, and 338 hours) one has to wonder if there is a point where the demands of the post stop and the needs of the individual to be constantly work- ing take over. OFFICIAL ENTERTAINING One of the major, and traditional, contributions of time wives make is in preparing for and being hostess at representational functions in their own homes. The range of time reported for this function varied from 0 (about one-sixth of the response) to a monumental 205 hours per month on the part of one woman. Over half those responding spend between one and 39 hours a month (less than one work-week) preparing and entertaining. The hours for those whose husbands have representational responsibilities are slightly higher although they still pri- marily fall in the under one work-week a month range. Fifty-five percent of the Ambassador's and Charges' wives, however, report between 40 and 79 (between one and two work-weeks) spent entertaining and 10 percent report between 80 and 119 hours a month. The pattern for time invested in official entertaining at the two posts with substantial responses bears out these observations. Not unsurprisingly, those women whose husbands have no representational responsi- bility show little or no time spent in "required" entertaining. One woman whose husband's job is not representational reports doing a. substantial amount of "effectively" representational entertaining because of their long-time and now high-level connections in the country. Personal as well as official relationships affect the number of hours spent. "It is our pleasure". Much entertaining is done in the evening although many people also report daytime activities. One night a week entertaining officially at home is the pattern for about a third of the respondents. Almost as many report less-one, two or three evenings a month. For those whose husbands have representational re- sponsibilities, two-thirds report between three nights a month and four nights a week. Twenty-five percent of Ambassadors' and Charges' wives entertain one evening a week, 25 percent report two evenings a week, and 30 percent report from three to five evenings a week. In addition, 25 percent also give one daytime social function a week and 30 percent give more than that The amount of time spent preparing for functions in the home varies with the function, the ease of shopping at the post, the availability of household help and the capabilities of that help. Women at one post report the necessity of crossing Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 one of. the world's largest cities to shop for things needed for representational entertaining. At another post, the food supply is so bad that;periodic motor trips on difficult roads to a neighboring country are necessary to be adequately sup- plied. Without these extreme cases, a minimum of two hours preparation time for every hour's entertaining time seems usual. A number of women mention that their husbands do an increasing amount of representational, entertaining at lunch in restaurants. Conversely, several say that at their present post the places to go out are limited and the quality poor. Because almost a quarter of the wives at the Class 4 post which responded en masse are employed, they organized a special questionnaire which shows that 11 out of 13 spouses with jobs outside the home continue to entertain about the same amount when they start working. Seven of them are hiring more help for parties, six are not. Ten of their husbands help plan and prepare for guests at the same rate as they did before, but no idea is given as to whether or not the husbands help. Eight of the women spend about the same amount of money while four spend more "because the easiest dishes to prepare are the most costly". Twelve report' that their type of entertaining has not changed. because of their employment, although one reports that "my job is at night and this makes entertaining difficult". Six report they do not choose to do less "representational" and more spontaneous entertaining with friends than they used to while four report that they do. One wife, employed outside the Mission, reports sharing entertaining work, expenses and guest lists with her husband. She pays and works when the guests are her contacts. He pays and does-the major work when they are his.. If, she is not there, he entertains. BEING OFFICIALLY ENTERTAINED Attending functions to which one has been invited solely because of the em- ployee's positions is another traditional occupation of Foreign Service spouses. Two-thirds of the sample report spending between one and 39 hours (one work- week) a month at such functions. A quarter of the sample report between 40 and 119 hours (over one and less than three work-week). One response docu- ments 135 hours in one month at official social functions. Half the respondents report attending functions two or three nights a week on an average. Many men- tion more than one function on a single evening. Those whose husbands have representational responsibilities suggest that three or four nights a week is a frequent pattern. "I think", writes one wife, "the cruelest aspect of a Foreign Service woman's time is that which she must give in the evenings. I have children and house- keeping duties which take up most of my daily time and ... any time that is for my enjoyment suffers for long periods of time because of the - evenings. When we don't go out,' we are so terribly exhausted we can only catch up on sleep. Some weeks we will go out 5 and 6 times .. this is an occupational hazard and should not be thought of as something to remedy. I wouldn't want my husband to go to these functions without me. I think we should instead advise women how to deal with the panic-i.e., identify it, find other times in the day for themselves, don't expect too much from themselves, etc. Also, more important still, how to help husbands deal with this panic of no time." Ambassadors' and Charges' wives average 58 hours 45 minutes attending offi- cial functions. "Not counting the time it takes to keep hair done and change clothes." None of these women reported less than two evenings out a week. "I tend to participate more actively as an Ambassador's wife than hitherto in the rounds ... there is a kind of unwritten quid pro quo that propels us to each other's National Days." The pattern varies considerably from post to post. One wife suggests that her present post is "'quieter" than some of the others in the area. A woman in a Muslim country has stopped attending many functions because the local wives do not attend. In another Muslim post, however, diplomatic wives are expected to maintain a very active social schedule largely separate from their husbands. "Calling on royal family wives is expected". One of the clear pictures this survey shows, then, is a large group of women whose evenings are not their own. They spend two or three nights or more out officially and maybe the same or slightly less entertaining officially at home. One wife suggests "there is one other factor to be considered, call it `minus time' . . . the time' representational duties take away from small children. So Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100060001-4 many functions are `early evening' and take the mother, especially, away from the dinner hour, bubble bath, story-time routine. Hired help is no substitute." Spouses contribute to other areas of official functioning of Missions. They escort Codels and other visitors, conduct price surveys, up-date post reports, edit post and commissary newsletters, serve on commissary and school boards, respond to the Forum Report, prepare slides for the Overseas Briefing Center, organize the American booth for local charity bazaars and many other things. Less than half the total. sample reported activities of this sort. This is also true of the two posts for, which it is possible to establish profiles. Most of those who are involved in these official activities, however, find that they consume from 1 to 39 hours of their, time (less than one work-week). Ambassadors' and Charges' wives average 28 hours per month. Very few women whose husbands do not have representational or leadership responsibilities report involvement in these activi- ties ; the few who do, with one exception, report less than 4 hours a month. The mosr, frequently mentioned activity is escorting visitors-taking them shopping and sightseeing. Codels are often mentioned separately from other visitors. Asked whether or not such activities are on a continuing or "one shot" basis, one wife responds "Each is `one shot' but they keep coming". Such escort duty can take from three to 15 hours a time. "Each visit usually takes my whole day..We use my car and my gas, and I drive". Other chores are also mentioned in relation to official visitors : mailing packages afterwards, checking airline reservations and, in some posts, putting them up. Escort duty falls primarily to the wives of the more senior officials. Not, all posts are on the visitors circuit. "My representational responsibilities here are negligible", reports the wife of a mid-level officer. "However, we were the only AID representatives at our last post and there was an average of two official visitors a week (often more) and only one hotel and restaurant in town. Obviously, my response would have looked quite different." Political circum- stances change quickly and a post can suddenly be inundated. "At the time of my log, I had not been involved with escorting visitors. Since that time, I have spent a considerable amount of time with Senators visiting. * * *, this month and last particularly. I did not record the hours but it would have been days, not hours." Women at two posts report they are not asked to participate in this type of activity without remuneration. "For official vistiors who require translators, the Embassy hires language experts among the wives". At another post, wives are given a training course and paid a flat fee for working a Congressional visit. Although one wife reports that "All required surveys are paid for in * * *" doing price surveys appears frequently on responses as official time that is unremunerated. Usually they are reported as using only a few hours a month (only once or twice a year) but two women report spending 40 hours (one work-week). Another category of official functioning which wives of senior officers, partic- ularly Ambassadors' and Charges' wives, report involves traditional diplomatic wives duties-calling on the wives of local officials and other members of the Diplomatic Corps, or being called upon by them ; attending the meetings of Diplomatic Wives and belonging to clubs of a binational nature. "The Ambas- sador's wife is always the honorary president of * * * so I feel I must." "The PAO's or CAO's wife is always asked to sit on the Arts Council Board." One post which sent in five responses shows several women involved in the President's Wife's Charity Tea. Other posts report similar functions which, while they may occur only once a year or every other year, can take up to 60 hours of a person's time and involve many of the women at the post. Entertaining "in-house" visitors is also mentioned by some women : "gave a dinner for the regional psychiatrist". Women at some constituents posts list house guests as an official time-consumer. "We are glad to do it but it is disruptive." The fourth question on the survey asked for "other time consumers which you consider official". There is considerable overlap in the responses to this question and the previous one (re official activities) on the survey form. Slightly fewer respondents list less hours than for the previous question. However, all Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 348 but one, of the Ambassadors' and Charges' wives list time in this category. They again aerage 28 hours. Other than these women, however, there is no predictable pattern as to who is involved and who is not. The underlying connection for women's responses to this question is tasks that they would not be undertaking except for the fact that they, find themselves abroad as the wife of their husband. One of the major areas involves Official Residence supervision, maintenance and repair and the supervision of Residence staff. This applies only to the wives of Principal Officers and their Deputies. "Inventory for Residence. 2 full days ! At home, I would not have to inventory a vast hotel kitchen with pantries, attic full of guest glassware, 4th of July tables, etc." "I'm tired ! ! Is my time 'supervis- ing' this official or not? I'd be in a much smaller place if it weren't for my husband's work." (She did not list the time for running the DCM's residence and it was not counted). "I also did not include traditional gifts (X-mas) to staff of Residence, drivers, agents, guards and all their children * * * 80 people ! I spent days on that. If this counts, add 35 hours (not counted). This has always been done, so I thought I should keep the practice which I'm sure these employees were expecting." (Hours a respondent listed in the blanks were counted-others, as above, mentioned in comments were merely noted.) "It took untold hours over nine months to get two bathrooms installed." Another recurring category is secretarial and social secretarial functions. One Ambassador's wife, an FSO on forced leave of absence, spends an hour or so each morning in their office at the Residence helping her husband "because the Embassy is short-staffed". Guest and Christmas card lists are revised. A number of women list two or three hours a month spent "trying to reach people on the phone about official things". In what may be a change from earlier times, only one response mentions "baking for a party at the Residence-3 hours." Time spent learning non-world languages is itemized by some. "I enjoy it but knowing * * * is particularly important so I can speak to my husband's contact's wives." Others teach English to local officials or diplomatic wives. Several wives cite use of their own professional skills : "36 hours per month/voluntary legal assistance work." "Lecturing on American education at the bi-national ' center." Perhaps the most telling part of the answers to these questions is that the women responding consider what they are doing to be official whether others would do so. or not. Three-quarters of the spouses responding contribute time to community building activities in one way or another. This includes attending Embassy or American Women's Clubs, children's Christmas and Halloween parties, Girl and Boy Scouts and above all, helping newcomers. For most women, this takes less than 20 hours a month (half of one work-week). Ambassadors' and Charges' wives average 18 hours, much of it in parties or other forms of welcome for newcomers. Community building, however, is the only area covered by the survey in which massive time involvement bears no relation to the husband's job. The wife of a junior officer with no representational responsibility, for instance, lists 53 hours a month as chairman of the Welcoming Committee. A male dependent spouse lists 32 hours in Embassy Women's Association functions. Other than for those who note they are officers of Wives Clubs, large periods of time invested in com- munity building seem to be seasonal-during the peak arrival times for new- comers or at the time of the annual Embassy bazaar or major post party for children or the local staff, or the 4th of July picnic. The survey form suggested that time involved in community building might be of a different nature, perhaps less official, than other official functions. One Ambassador's wife thinks that for her, at least, it is no different from her other obligations as the wife of her husband. A number of women report supporting school functions or giving children's parties "even though I have no children." The survey in no way addressed itself to the respondents' feelings about the work they do or what they think about remuneration. On the whole, the re- sponses are noncommital but cooperative, just as the cumulative picture the survey presents is of basically cooperative, wryly hard working women. Yet not everyone is totally cheerful. Some, as already quoted, are tired. "I think what dismays me most of all," says another, "is that my contribution is neither Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 recognized nor appreciated-whether it be marketing to have a dinner party or whatever. If you want good food you must go to various markets to buy it-one pace for fish, another for meat, another market for fruit, flowers somewhere else, soft drinks at the supermarket. Sometimes it takes half a dozen trips. And no one really cares." Several women remark that they feel specific jobs should be paid for. "I won't do (a price survey) again unless I'm paid." "If I were paid even minimum wage for the hours I put in, I could afford graduate school when we get home." Just as clearly, there are those who feel the opposite. "I do not wish to be remunerated. Ambassadors' wives get plenty of appreciation, compensation enough-and too much attention !" Other women remark "I do what I do by choice." A substantial number of the respondents clearly, however, feel obliged by the circumstances they find themselves in to do what they are doing, and regard it as a contribution to official functioning of the Mission of which they see themselves a part. QUESTIONS, NOT ANSWERS In the final analysis, a survey such as this raises more questions than it suggests answers. The broad picture is clear enough. The survey bears out common knowledge that many spouses contribute to the official functioning of U.S. Mis- sions around the world to a greater or lesser degree. The more responsible an employee's position in terms of representation and post-leadership, the more likely the spouse is to participate in official functions and the more time-consum- ing that participation is apt to be. Yet paradoxically-although the survey results merely hint at it-there is other evidence of a growing trend for some of these same spouses to want, or need, jobs of their own. Can, will the present degree of contribution by spouses to official functioning (between one and three work-weeks a month from a large cumber of people even more from others) be continued? If it is, or if it is not, what are the implications for the Foreign Service? For spouses? Are these contributions a function of traditional social roles? Of the System's expectations of wives? Of wives' expectations for themselves? Of the local com- munity's expectations of "Embassy Wives"? How dependent is the system on receiving them? What are the needs of the individuals who make them? What are the alternatives? Both spouses in many Foreign Service marriages are contributing participants in that Foreign Service career or at least to the Foreign Service. What is the dependent. spouse's economic share in that career? Is the dependent spouse contributing to the marriage-partner employee or to the Foreign Service or both? What are the appropriate forms of recognition for the many contributions being made by spouses? Is anyone obliged to care? Ultimately, perhaps, the question is what is representation? Who represents? Why? What is effective? Necessary? A study of representation and the Depart- ment's needs in that regard has already been called for. This time-use survey and its documentation of hours, work-weeks, contributed further underscores the need for clarification of the representation issues. The CHAIRMAN. Where is your liaison office? Ms. DORMAN. As one goes into C Street at the State Department, turn directly to the left and it is the first bank of offices on the left. The CHAIRMAN. Who manages it now, voluntary employees? Ms. DORMAN. No, Janet Lloyd is the director. She is an FSR-3 and there is a deputy director, an FSR-5. The CHAIRMAN. Who pays their salary? Ms. DORMAN. Under management, the Department of State. And there is a secretary. And also attached to this office is the skills/talent bank coordinator who is working there. And there is also an educa- tion counselor there too at the moment. The CHAIRMAN. Now in your group, and I raised this with you be- fore, do you represent all spouses, including the male spouses of female officers? Do you have male members? 50-230-80-23 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Ms. DORMAx. We don't at the moment. As a matter of fact we are in the process, I have already designated a chairman of a committee to look into our organization in its broadest possible sense. We are look- ing into the possibility. First of all we have to change our name a little bit. Because we have had people who have shown a decided.in- terest of joining among the males, not so much the male. spouses today but male officers, unmarried officers in point of face have been very interested in joining our group. I would like to mention here that in the skills/talent.bank there. are 24 male spouses aboard, which is very important. And we have been dealing very much up until now with women's affairs, not just spouses. We have women officers, we have secretaries, and "we have the staff corps, right down the line as members in recent times. So we are very well represented among the women, as far as the women are concerned. EMPLOYMENT OF SPOUSES IN POSTS, ABROAD The :C-IAIRDIAN. What are your views with regard to the emplo- ment of spouses in a post abroad when the Foreign Service Officer involved has a responsible job in that same post? In other words it is obvious that an Ambassador's wife should probably not be work- ing in the administrative section. On the other hand should the con- sular affairs wife be working in the administrative section, or should the administrative officer's wife be working in the administrative section ? Ms. DORMAN. Well, I think it preferable if possible if she could work in another office. We have a situation now where there is an ambassador just going out whose wife is a career Foreign Service Officer and she is working I believe for ICA at the particular post. I don't think it -necessary for them to work at another organization. I think it can cause less conflicts if the husband and wife are not working in the same division. I can see problems there but everybody might not agree with me. Ms. CURRAN. I think it would have to be handled on an individual basis. I think most posts and the management of most posts would be very sensitive to that kind of situation and would probably make a very good decision as to who should be employed where depending upon their relationship and their personality I think might even come into play there. 0 But I don't think you could really write-rules about it. I think people would bend over. backwards to be careful about that sort of thing. . The CHAIRMAN. I believe you favored the approach of the Schroeder bill on retirement benefits and survivor annuities for divorced spouse which would automatically give a former spouse married to a retire- ment system participant credit for at least 10 years of marriage to a Foreign Service Officer, giving her at least 10 years of the pro-rated share. But doesn't the approach of the draft Foreign service bill, requiring a court order before this could happen, have the advantage of taking into account any special circumstances?. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Ms. RYAN. This is a very difficult problem that has many: intractable aspects. The problem with the court order approach that the State Department has undertaken is first of all the expense of recourse to the courts. We are talking about women who frequently-the problem is that, they don't have resources. There is also the problem that the courts and the lawyers, the judges and lawyers alike don't know the special circumstances of Foreign Service life that is required that until 1972 had the wives graded on their husband's efficiency reports, that the job itself means that you virtually have no opportunity:to create your own economic base. You tend to be cut off from your community where you were raised so you have no kind of community roots. And there is as we all know no precedent in law. That is probably: the most im- portant drawback. 't'here are no precedents. What is not addressed in this bill is having some kind of survivor annuity for a former spouse. We have a number of cases where people have spent 25. or. 30 years in the Foreign Service with their husbands, being graded, in their hus- band's efficiency reports, and their husband remarries and the sub- sequent wife receives the fruits of these years that the former wife put in and she is left penniless in many cases. So the Schroeder bill I believe makes no requirement of time but is simply on the overlap between the years of service and the years of the marriage. So that if the career were 20 years and you have been, married 10 years of the time that the spouse was in Government employ you would receive automatically half of the survivor annuity and half of the pension. The CHAIRMAN. You say half the pension. Does that mean half of the husband's retirement pension? Ms. 1tYAN. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. His retirement pension would be reduced by half? Ms. RYAN. That is right. We feel that marriage is an economic partnership. The CHAIRMAN. Why would it be a half because if it is a partner- ship-I agree where the wife plays a very real role in it, but I am not sure she plays 50 percent of the husband's success. Ms. RYAN. It wouldn't be half. It would be if she had been married for 5 years and his career was 20 years The CHAIRMAN. But for the 5 years they were married it would be half ? Ms. RYAN. Five years they were married while he was in Government service. If they were married before he came into service; that period of marriage would not count. This is not a perfect system The CHAIRMAN. You may be right. I think my wife has helped me fantastically through the years. f am not sure she has helped me 50 percent. I like to think she has helped on a 40-60 basis. Ms. DORMAN. I hope that, doesn't get back to her, Senator Pell. [The following information was supplied. by Ms. Ryan to clarify the above discussion:] BREAKDOWN OF THE SCHROEDER BILL The'Schroeder bill apportions the pension of a government employee on a pro rata basis between the government employees career and' the' length of the' marriage in those years. The maximum spousal share of a pension would be 50 percent in a case where the marriage extended through the government employee's entire career. Therefore a marriage that lasted 10 years of a 20 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 year' government career would qualify the spouse for,25, percent of the pension .and 50 percent of it survivor annuity. The CHAIRMAN. How do you feel on the question of the incentive pay ?Do you believe that is a good idea or not or are you familiar with that provision where they would pay some Foreign Service officers extra money for doing a good job, somewhat like a major general getting extra money for doing a good job and not if he didn't. What is your view on that? Ms. DORMAN. Well, unofficially, Mr. Chairman, because we are really an autonomous organization and not under the Foreign Affairs agency so I cannot speak officially on that, unofficially I do not agree with that at all. I do like your idea of putting us alongside the Marine Corps. I thought that was delightful. The CHAIRMAN. That is the way you feel. Thank you very much. I particularly congratulate you on your Family Liaison Office because I have heard of, it and know it is doing a good job. I hope we can give whatever support we can in this legislation. I can't guarantee we will, but I would like to. Ms. DORMAN. We appreciate that very much. The CHAntiAN. Our next witness is Mr. Cecil Uyehara, Foreign Af- fairs Chapter, Asian and Pacific American Federal Employees Council. Please go ahead and proceed. [Mr. Uyehara's biography follows:] BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF CECIL H. UYEHARA For the past 15 years, I have been involved in programming, budgeting, plan- ning and evaluation. of U.S. economic assistance programs in various countries, e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Latin America region, political-economic policy anal- yses, program operations in varying combinations. I am the Director, Program Operations Staff, Latin America Bureau, and have been the Assistant Director for Development Planning in Afghanistan, Chief, Programming Div., Vietnam Bureau, all in the Agency for International Develop- ment, and senior budget examiner in the former Bureau of the Budget, and geo- political analyst in:the U.S. Air Force. Awards include Federal Executive Institute senior executive training in 1978; Commissioner's Award of the U.S. Civil Service Commission for distinguished service as'member of the Federal Personnel 'Project, 1978; Career Education Award for Federal Civil Service Employees, National Institute for Public Affairs, Harvard University, 1963-64. Publications have centered on Japan: co-authorship of The Social Democratic Party of Japan (1966) ; Leftwing Social Movements in Japan, An Annotated Bibliography. Another study concerned "the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and Scien- tific Advise," in Knowledge and Power (1966). Professional and civic organizations include : Foreign Affairs Chapter, Asian and Pacific American Federal Employees Council, Chapter President, 1977-78; Association for Asian Studies ; Japan America Society of Washington, D.C. member, Board of Trustees, 1977-81; Columbia University Seminar on Modern Japan, Vice Chairman, 1979-80; Asia Society, Afghanistan Council, New York; Japan-America Student Conference, Inc., member, Board of Trustees. Education: BA(48) Keio Univ.; MA(51) Univ. of Minnesota; 1963-64; Har- vard Univ. Kennedy School of Government. Language : read and speak fluent Japanese. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100060001-4 STATEMENT OF CECIL H. UYEHARA, FOREIGN AFFAIRS CHAPTER, ASIAN AND PACIFIC AMERICAN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE LEE, DEPART- MENT OF STATE; AND DR. JOSE ARMILLA, U.S. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY Mr. UTEHARA. We do have a longer statement which we will submit for the record and we also have the summary. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on the pro- posed Foreign. Service Act from. the perspective of Asian and. Pacific Americans. My name is Cecil Uyehara. I am with the Agency for International Development. With me on my left is George Lee with the Department of State and on my right is Dr. Jose Armilla, U.S. International Communication Agency. Today we are appearing before you in our personal capacities on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Chapter of the Asian and Pacific Ameri- can Federal Employees Council., which is a national organization of Asian and Pacific Americans in the Federal service. We appear today first to show that the manner in which the 1946 Foreign Service Act has been implemented has resulted in discrimina- tion against Asian Americans and exclusion of them from a meaning- ful role in the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. Second, we seek your support for equitable and equal opportunities for employment of Asian Americans in the foreign affairs agencies on the basis of qualifications, training, ability, and merit. And third, to solicit your support for specific amendments to the proposed 1979 Foreign Service Act to make equal opportunity in all: aspects of em- ployment in the foreign service a statutory requirement of the act. We would like to emphasize that the Asian Americans as a group is one of the most highly trained in the United States-and simultane- ously one of the least utilized in the U.S. foreign policymaking process where we must utilize every resource that we have. - '. As other minorities have played a major and successful role in com- municating with the Third World for example, so too could the Asian Americans make a successful and constructive contribution. Unfortu- nately despite the concentrated pool of talent among Asian. Americans they have not been able to participate. Well, what progress has been made? In the Department of State there was. only one Asian American at the State's policymaking level 2 years ago. None of the Asian Amer- ican FSO-1 or GS-15's have been appointed or promoted to senior level policymaking positions. In AID the exclusion of Asian Americans from senior positions is much more glaring. Despite the fact that among all minority groups Asian Americans have the highest percentage of qualified employees from which selections could have been made, none have been promoted. Only one has been appointed to a senior level position and even