THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
1066
Document Creation Date: 
December 21, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 27, 2008
Sequence Number: 
1
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
October 16, 1979
Content Type: 
OPEN SOURCE
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3.pdf57.65 MB
Body: 
Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS H.;& 4674 JUNE 21, 28; JULY 9, 11, 17, 18, 24; SEPTEMBER 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 27; AND OCTOBER 16, 1979 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS H.R. 4674 JUNE 21, 28; JULY 9, 11, 17, 18, 24; SEPTEMBER 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 27; AND OCTOBER 16, 1979 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62-083 0 WASHINGTON : 1980 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, Wisconsin, Chairman L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana LESTER L. WOLFF, New York JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, New York GUS YATRON, Pennsylvania CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York DON BONKER, Washington GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts ANDY IRELAND, Florida DONALD J. PEASE, Ohio DAN MICA, Florida MICHAEL D. BARNES, Maryland WILLIAM H. GRAY III, Pennsylvania TONY P. HALL, Ohio HOWARD WOLPE, Michigan DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi FLOY1J J..FITHIAN, Indiana WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, Michigan EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois rAUL FINDLEY, Illinois JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York TENNYSON GUYER, Ohio ROBERT J. LAGOMARSINO, California WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington MILLICENT FENWICK, New Jersey DAN QUAYLE, Indiana JOHN J. BRADY, Jr., Chief of Staff SUSAN MCCARTAN, Stqff Assistant SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida, Chairman ANDY IRELAND, Florida JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama DAN MICA, Florida EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois WILLIAM H. GRAY III, Pennsylvania JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi R. MICHAEL FINLEY, Subcommittee Staff Director JANEAN L. MANN, Minority Staff Consultant VIRGINIA SCHLUNDT, Subcommittee Stdff Associate KAREN BRENNAN, Subcommittee Staff Associate COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE JAMES M. HANLEY, New York, Chairman MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Vice Chairman CHARLES H. WILSON, California EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN, Maryland HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia ROBERT GARCIA, New York GEORGE THOMAS (MICKEY) LELAND. Texas GERALDINE A. FERRARO, New York CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas DONALD JOSEPH ALBOSTA, Michigan JOHN J. CAVANAUGH, Nebraska GUS YATRON. Pennsylvania MARY ROSE OAKAR, Ohio BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York JIM LEACH, Iowa TOM CORCORAN, Illinois JAMES A. COURTER, New Jersey CHARLES PASHAYAN, JR., California WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, California DANIEL B. CRANE, Illinois DAVID MINTON, Executive Director and General Counsel THEODORE J. KAZY, Minority Staff Director ROBERT E. LOCKHART, Deputy General Counsel J. PIERCE MYERS, Assistant General Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado, Chairwoman MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona JIM LEACH, Iowa HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia GENE TAYLOR, Missouri WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri CHARLES PASHAYAN, JR., California GUS YATRON, Pennsylvania JAMES A. COURTER, New Jersey ANDREW FEINSTEIN, Subcommittee Staff Director Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 CONTENTS Tuesday, June 21, 1979: Page Hon. Cyrus R. Vance, Secretary of State-------------------------- 2 Hon. Ben H. Read, Under Secretary of State for Management------ 9 Hon. Harry Barnes, Director General of the Foreign Service-------- 22 James H. Michel, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State------- 32 Thursday, June 28, 1979: Hon. John E. Reinhardt, Director, International Communication Agency ------------------------------------------------------- 57 Robert H. Nooter, Acting Administrator, Agency for International Development -------------------------------------------------- 71 Richard W. Parsons, Deputy Director, Office of Personnel Manage- ment, Agency for International Development-------------------- 81 Monday, July 9, 1979: Steven Koczak, special projects assistant to the national president, American Federation of Government Employees------------------ 85 Lars Hydle. president, American Foreign Service Association------- 123 Kenneth Bleakley, president-elect, American Foreign Service Asso- ciation -------------------------------------------------------- 142 Robert Stern, member of the governing board, American Foreign Service Association------------------------------------------- 147 Catherine Waelder, legal counsel, American Foreign Service Associa- tion ---------------------------------------------------------- 148 Wednesday, July 11, 1979: Hon. Ben H. Read, Under Secretary of State for Management ------------------------------------------------------- 163 Tuesday, July 17, 1979: Hon. Claude Pepper, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ------------------------------------------------------- 195 Joseph Glazer, International Communication Agency--------------- 199 Hon. Alan K. Campbell, Director, Office of Personnel Management--- 202 Hon. Robert G. Neumann, senior associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University-------------------- 219 Wednesday, July 18, 1979: Marguerite Cooper King, vice president for the State Department for the Women's Action Organization------------------------------- 243 Hon. Ben H. Read, Under Secretary of State for Management------- 271 Tuesday, July 24, 1979: Lesley Dorman, president, Association of American Foreign Service Women ----------------------- --- 296 Marcia Curran, Forum Committee on Employment, Association of American Foreign Service Women---------------- --- 299 Patricia Ryan, Forum Committee on Retirement, Association of American Foreign Service Women------------------------------- 304 Elizabeth Sherman Thurston, Association of American Foreign Serv- ice Women--------- -------------- 307 ---------------------------- Thursday, September 6, 1979: Jos4 Armilla, vice president, foreign affairs chapter, Asian and Pa- cific Americans Federal Employees Council---------------------- 325 William C. Harrop, Senior Foreign Service officer and former president of the American Foreign Service Association--------------------- 334 Cynthia Thomas, Foreign Service Reserve Officer, Department of State --------------------------------------------------------- 383 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Friday, September 7, 1979: Hon. Martin F. Herz, former U.S. Ambassador Page to Bulgaria ------------------------------------------------------- 393 Tuesday, September 11, 1979: Janet Lloyd, Director, Family Liaison Office, Department of State___ 411 Hon. Ben H. Read, Under Secretary for Management, Department of State --------------------------------------------------------- 419 Wednesday, September 19, 1979: Hon. Henry A. Kissinger, former Secre- tary of State------------------------------------------------------ 446 Thursday, September 20, 1979: Hon. George Ball, former Under Secretary of State________________ 487 Richard I. Bloch, Chairman, Foreign Service Grievance Board ------- 494 James R. Washington, president, Thursday Luncheon Group________ 508 David Smith, vice president, Thursday Luncheon Group____________ 516 James Singletary, Foreign Service officer, Agency for International Development --------------------------------------------------- 520 Thursday, September 27, 1979: Patrick E. Linehan, senior research analyst, Defense Intelligence Agency ------------------------------------------------------- 525 Robert S. Gershenson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Person- nel, Department of State________________________________________ 537 Kenneth Bleakley, president, American Foreign Service Association__ 556 Hon. Ben H. Read, Under Secretary of State for Management---___ 580 Tuesday, October 16, 1979; Richard F. Celeste, Director, Peace Corps____ 599 MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Numerical summary of minority representation in the Foreign Service____ 24 Summary of the financial status of the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund---------------------------------------------------- 32 Comparison of the Obey regulations with the provisions of proposed For- eign Service Act of 1979____________________________________________ 77 Summary of the personnel authorities for the International Development and Cooperation Agency and the Agency for International Development_ 80 Statement of Kenneth T. Blaylock, national president, American Federa- tion of Government Employees______________________________________ 89 Section-by-section analysis of the Foreign Service Act by the American Foreign Service Association_________________________________________ 125 Statement by the American Foreign Service Association on pay compara- bility for the U.S. Foreign Service___________________________________ 143 Legal basis for the functions of U.S. consular officers abroad______________ 179 Figures representing the rate of selection-out of Foreign Service officers for inefficiency in the Foreign Service______________________________ 206 Office of Personnel Management views on providing employment for spouses of Foreign Service officers stationed overseas________________________ 206 Office of Personnel Management views on noncompetitive appointment to the civil service for former Peace Corps staff_______________________ 214 Letters submitted for the record from the Women's Action Organization to its State Department employees on equal employment opportunities---- 256 Letter from Hon. Loy W. Henderson, former Under Secretary for Admin- istration, Department of State, presenting views on the earned rights of Foreign Service spouses____________________________________________ 298 Table listing middle and upper employment of Asian Americans in State, AID, and USICA--------------------------------------------------- 327 Amendments proposed by the ASIAN and Pacific Americans Federal Em- ployees Council to implement equal employment opportunity principles__ 330 Statement by Hon. Jim Leach, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, on testimony by Lannon Walker and William Harrop__________ 333 Questions submitted in writing to Messrs. Harrop and Walker and re- sponses thereto---------------------------------------------------- 375 Article by Hon. George F. Kerman, former Ambassador to the Soviet Union, entitled, "Foreign Policy and the Professional Diplomat"______________ 399 Excerpt from an interview with George F. Kennan, by John F. Campbell in the Foreign Service Journal, August 1970__________________________ 400 Article by Hon. George Ball, former Under Secretary of State, reprinted from the Washington Post, entitled, "Showbiz Diplomacy"_____________ 408 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Memorandum from Nancy V. Rawls, Acting Director of Personnel, Depart- ment of St t t H a e o on Ben H Read Und St f M ,..,erecrearyoranagement, Department of State, on the Foreign Service Structure: Modification of Page the FSO Cone System__________________ ---------------- -- ______ ______ ----------------------------- 421 Statement submitted by the Department of State on the need for continua- ti on of mandatory retiet i th Fi rmenneoregn Service of the United States ------------------------------- - 29 - 4 --- Letter from Hon. Cyrus R. Vance, Secretary of State, on the need for the continuation of mandatory retirement in the Foreign Service of the United States--------------------------- -- Article by Marlise Simons, reprinted from the Washington Post, entitled, Statements of Hon. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, on the "U O " p or ut principle mandatotit ,ry reremen, and noncareer appoint- ments in the Foreign Service_________ 4 _____ 56 ___ Statement of Hon. Henry A. Kissinger, former Secretary of State, on e ual l q emp oyment opportunity andffititi i armave aconn the Foreign Service ----------------------------- ------- ----------------------- of Hon. Henry A. Kissinger, former Secretary of State on the 461 Chart detailing point values for job content for various positions within Yv1, Chart assigning percentage values for job content for ---------------------------------- positions within Chart assigning accountability values for various positions within the Foreign ry------- Chart listing rank order of various positions within the Foreign Service__ 543 _-- ---------------------------------- 545 Comparison of pay levels among the Foreign Service and civil service and Chart listing options for possible implementation of the Hay Associates UYo Updated, section-by-section analysis of the Foreign Service Act by the - -_____n 5 -------- 57 ---------------------- Letter from Richard Celeste concerning the impact of noncompetitive i il i c v serv ce eligibility for Peace Corps staff--------------------------- 811 APPENDIXES 1. Questions submitted in writing to Hon. John Reinhardt, Director, l C,.-.,. ..----`--- -- ' Intern ti m a ona _ 2. Annex 1 to the statement of Kenneth T!. Blaylock, .. national president .-. 011,.. r..--- `? ---- f o 3. Report of the Forum of the Association of American Foreign Service 4. Report of the Association of Foreign Service Women to the Secretary __ _ ------- 5. Time use survey submitted by the Association of American Foreign ---------------------------- 6. Letter from Jose Armilla, vice president of the Foreign Affairs Chapter, iv Asian a d P ifi A n ac c merican Federal El Cilli mpoyeeounc, encosng an annex to his testimony of September 6 1979 , ----------------- 7. 8 Letter from Robert L. Berra, vice president for personnel, Monsanto C t o o on Dante B Fsllhi Sbi .,..ace, carman,ucommttee on Inter- national Operations, giving a critique of the proposed legislation to restructure the Foreign Service personnel system_________________ 772 Statement of Hon. James T. Broyhill, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, on the Foreign Service Act of 1979_ 774 Statement of Louis Clark, Director, and Deborah K. Burand, of the Government Accountability Project, Institute for Policy Studies__ 776 Letter and statement of Brewster C. Denny, dean, Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, commenting on H.R. 4674, the Foreign Service Act of 1979___________________________ 786 Letter from Robert S. Folsom, Foreign Service officer, retired, to Virginia Schlundt, counsel, Subcommittee on International Opera- tions,-concerning the Foreign Service reorganization bill ----------- 793 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 12. Letter from Hon. Martin F. Herz, former U.S. Ambassador to Bul- Page garia, to Virginia Schlundt, counsel, Subcommittee on International Operations, elaborating on his testimony before the subcommittee- 795 13. Statement of Miriam Chrisler Hilliker, Office of Legislative Affairs, Women's Division, Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church, on H.R.2857---------------------------------------- 798 14. Letter from Roger W. Jones, chairman, National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, D.C., to Hon. Dante B. Fascell, chairman, Subcommittee on International Operations, stating views on the proposed reorganization of the Foreign Service------ 800 15. Letter from Robert D. Krause, president, International Personnel Management Association, Washington, D.C., to Hon. Dante B. Fascell, chairman, Subcommittee on International Operations, expressing views on proposed restructuring of the Foreign Service-- 807 16. Statement of C. A. McKinney, director of Government affairs, Na- tional Capital Office, Noncommissioned Officers Association of the 811 United States---------------------------- 17. Letter from Rufus E. Miles, Jr., Senior Fellow, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University to Hon. Dante B. Fascell, chairman, Subcommittee on International 812 Operations, giving a critique of H.R. 4674--------------------- 18. Statement of Donald H. Schwab, director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, with respect to pend- ing legislation to apportion annuities of Foreign Service officers---- 814 19. Statement of John P. Shelley, executive vice president, National 817 Uniformed Services, on H.R. 2857---------------------------- 20. Letter from Hon. Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General of the United States to Hon. Dante B. Fascell, chairman, Subcommittee on Inter- national Operations, analyzing proposed legislation to reform the 820 Foreign Service personnel system------------------------ 21. Statement of Bernard Wiesman, president of the Foreign Affairs Employees Council, American Federation of Government Em- ployees, on the proposed rewriting of the Foreign Service Act------ 828 22. "A Profile of Women in AID", submitted by the Women's Action 846 Organization----------- 23. Comparison of labor law provisions in civil service law and labor law provisions in the proposed .Foreign Service Act, by staff 862 of the Subcommittee on Civil Service --------------------------- 24. Statement of the Women's Equity Action League, on H.R. 2857, the Foreign Service Retirement Income Equity Act------------------ 868 25. Questions submitted in writing to the Federation of Government 870 Employees and responses thereto------------------------------ 26. Questions submitted in writing to the Department of State and 888 responses thereto-------------------------------------------- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1979 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, AND COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittees met at 9:40 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman of the Subcommit- tee on International Operations) presiding. Mr. FASCELL. Today the Subcommittees on International Operations and on Civil Service initiate a series of hearings on a proposal by the administration to reform the Foreign Service personnel system of the Department of State, the International Communication Agency and the Agency for International Development. I must say this has been a long time in coming but I want to con- gratulate the Secretary of State and Secretary Read for their diligence in persevering with a problem that has too often been relegated to the bottom of the heap because nobody wanted to deal with it. The Secre- tary has made good on his longstanding commitment to give attention to this matter. I am delighted that we are having these joint hearings with the Sub- committee on Civil Service. On behalf of the Subcommittee on Inter- national Operations, I welcome my cochairman, Hon. Pat Schroeder, and the members of her subcommittee. Pat. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you, Dante. I am pleased that our commit- tees are having these joint hearings. I think that the cross-fertilization of our personnel law perspective with yours on foreign affairs will result in meaningful and responsible consideration of the legislation. I particularly am pleased to be cochairing this with my good friend, Dante Fascell. Mr. Secretary, I welcome you and I wonder where you find the time just 3 days after the signing of SALT in Vienna to update the Foreign Service. We are delighted to do this jointly to try and conserve your energy and everyone else's. I want to raise at the very beginning some questions that we are going Jo have about the Foreign Service before we go full speed ahead to fix it. I think a lot of people want to know what's broken and why this legislation is really needed and why we are doing this at this time. (1) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 The Foreign Service selects new officers under procedures which are loose and changeable. This concerns me very much and I wonder if this selection procedure is valid. I have a feeling sometimes that it screens out disproportinate numbers of women, blacks, and Hispanics. Promotion in the Foreign Service is often done on a collegiate basis and I often wonder if this is an effective system of peer rating or is it really the old-boy Princetonian network as we know and love it. Are adequate provisions made for spouses of Foreign Service offi- cers? My heart goes out to Jane Dubs who was left penniless after her former husband was tragically assassinated in Afghanistan. I am con- cerned about whether this legislation goes far enough in dealing with cases such as hers. Is there adequate protection for employees in the Foreign Service ? I am talking about the protection of the right to organize and bargain collectively, the protection of the right not to be subject to arbitrary dismissal, the protection of the right to register dissent. I think those are all very important. We have just finished doing some major civil service reform in our committee. I am not sure this legislation goes as far as what we have done. I think we are going to want to go that far unless you give us many really good reasons why we should not. I have some other things. I just thought to save time I would point out some of the things I am really going to focus on. Again I thank you for appearing and being here this morning. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Secretary, I think there are some questions left, I am not sure, but I will work on that as we go along. I think that Mrs. Schroeder has put her finger on some major problems of concern. We basically are all interested in doing one thing and that is to make certain, as President Eisenhower once said, that the State Depart- ment and the people who serve in the Foreign Service should be of the highest moral character and we should do everything that we can to insure that their morale is high, so that they perform their best. We want to get and keep qualified people because the Service is so demanding. Therefore, this effort, while it might be boring for some, is going to be very important for a lot of people and for the Govern- ment and for the country, so we will just go at it step by step. Mr. Secretary, I know that you have a prepared statement so you may proceed. OZ. CYRUS R. VANOE, SECRETARY OF STATE Secretary VANcE. Thank you very much. First I would like to ex- press my great appreciation to the chairperson for the early scheduling of these hearings on the proposed new Foreign Service Act to which I and all of us in the Department attach such great importance. 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 that the country and its lead- ers depend upon a strong and vigorous Foreign Service. And I believe a strong Foreign Service needs this act. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 The Rogers Act of 1924 which created the modern Foreign Service, and the Foreign Service Act of 1946, which established its present form, were landmarks in their time. They served us well. The 1946 act created the personnel system which now supplies three- fourths of our Ambassadors. This administration, as have all admin- istrations since World War II, depends on it for the people who rep- resent 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 Foreign Service career, and we must look ahead to the challenges our Foreign Service will face in the future. Diplomacy has always been a risky business. From the days of Ben- jamin Franklin and the Committees of Correspondence, our diplo- mats 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 years tragically demonstrate. The 1946 act gave us a Foreign Service that answered the demands of that day. But today's circumstances are significantly changed. The number 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 interna- tional dimension of economic issues has become increasingly central. Major new areas of concern such as nuclear nonproliferation, narcotics control, environmental protection, and science and technology have emerged. And new emphasis has been given to traditional concerns of Ameri- can foreign policy such as the advancement of human rights. Ameri- cans are traveling abroad in record numbers, with a commensurate increase in the demands for 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 re- lationships only emerged in the Senate Department within the last 10 years. A change has also taken place in the perceived advantages of over- seas service. The quality of life in many foreign capitals has dete- riorated while the threat to personal safety has increased. The declin- ing 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 these developments underscore the obvious fact that the For- eign Service is confronted by dramatically different circumstances 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. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 4 And yet the structure of the Service has not kept pace. Obsolete, cumbersome, and frequently anomalous organizational 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 challenges 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 condi- tions of the Foreign Service, 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. The bill we are proposing for your consideration today is directly responsive to a 1976 congressional request calling on the Department to submit a "comprehensive plan" to improve and simplify our per- sonnel arrangements. The proposal represents 3 years of study, suspended only during congressional consideration of the civil service legislation last year, but resumed and intensified during the last 7 months. It represents extensive consultation within the executive branch and with interested members and staff on the Hill. I have devoted many hours to this process and I 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 incentive 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 oppor- tunity to move through the ranks at a rate which reflects their ability. Some procedures, such as selection out for substandard perform- ance, would be applicable for the first time to all Foreign Service per- sonnel from highest to 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 essen- tial 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 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 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 For- eign Service and the Civil Service. It clearly limits Foreign Service career status only to those people who accept the discipline of serv- ice overseas. Today, there are several hundred 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 for more than a dozen to two. There would be a single pay scale for ' both. In general, our personnel laws would be consolidated, rationalized, and codified to meet current needs. Fourth, it places employee-management relations on a firmer and more equitable statutory basis, establishing a new Foreign Service Labor Relations Board and a Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel. Fifth, it would underscore our commitments to mitigating the special hardships and strains on Foreign Service families, and to advancing equal employment opportunity and fair and equitable treatment for all without regard to race, national origin, sex, handi- cap, or other 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 which will be described in more detail by others who follow me, including USICA Director Reinhardt and Acting AID Director Robert Nooter. The mission of the Foreign Service in the years ahead will be com- plex and difficult. It will face great demands, both physical and emotional. But freed by this new proposed charter from the organizational 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 For- eign Service. I believe that when you have completed your examina- tion of this proposed legislation, you will share my view that a strong Foreign Service needs this act. Thank you. Mr. FnscELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, how much of this could be done, if any, through purely administrative action? Secretary VANCE. Some of it could be done by administrative re- form, but I believe that extensive legislation is required and not just administrative reform. I say that because I think legislation is neces- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 sary in order to do a number of things, and let me list what they are. First, to affirm authoritatively the essential contemporary role of the Foreign Service. Second, to convert to civil service status without the loss of bene- fits Foreign Service personnel in the State Department and in USICA who are obligated and needed only for domestic service. Third, to place employee-management relations on a statutory basis. Fourth, to create a Senior Foreign Service with rigorous promotion and retention standards which will be closely related to performance with appropriate linkages to the Senior Executive Service and with similar risks and benefits, including performance pay. Fifth, to create a single Foreign Service pay scale. Sixth, to combine more than a dozen Foreign Service personnel categories and subcategories into categories of two. Seventh, to provide similar requirements for providing tenure, pro- motions based on merit principles, and selection out for substandard performance for all members of the Service from top to bottom. And eighth, to recodify and consolidate major personnel legislation relating to the Foreign Service. For all of those reasons I believe that a comprehensive bill such as this is required. Mr. FASCELL. Well, may I suggest another reason. If you try this without the Congress, you would probably be in trouble anyway. Secretary VANCE. I am sure that is right. Mr. FASCELL. Mrs. Schroeder. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much. I have many many questions and I never know quite where to begin but let me start with one of my pet projects. First of all I want to compliment you in allowing spouses to work in embassies abroad, but in the interim, as you know, we went through a whole period where one's career was based on how one's spouse performed. Spouses got report cards and if they earned their own jobs, the careers of their spouses would be jeopardized. So I* have introduced an annuity bill. My understanding is that the State Department did not see fit to go that far and I was wondering what your position was on the annuity rights bill that I have intro- duced? Secretary VANCE. This is a very important matter and one which has been a matter of deep concern to me. This bill acknowledges that the direct contribution made by Foreign' Service spouses should give them a vested right in a survivor annuity after 10 years of accom- panying their spouse. In this regard the bill specifically provides that there can be no waiver without the express consent of the spouse under those circumstances. I think this is of fundamental importance. Mrs. ScHROEDER. And you are not insisting on a court order first for that to take place? Secretary VANCE. That is correct. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Women, blacks, and Hispanics. I asked your AID colleague in my committee about equal employment opportunities in the Foreign Service and was told that they didn't like to travel. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Secretary VANCE. I think that we have not done an adequate job in this area which is very obvious from any scrutiny of the personnel records in the Department. As a result of that, one of the principal tasks that I and my colleagues undertook when I became Secretary of State was to establish a review panel to .take a look at the affirmative action programs of the Department and to come up with a specific program for putting into effect a strong affirmative action program. That has been done. We have been having regular followup meetings with the affirmative action task force to check on the progress that is being made. I think that at a number of levels we are making good progress. In some we are not making adequate progress, and it is something that we simply are not going to tolerate. We are going to insist that the programs be carried out and be carried out effectively. I am not satisfied with the progress yet, but we are on the right track and our people are wholeheartedly behind it. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think one of my problems has been why the Foreign Service relies so much on promotions being decided by the selection boards. It seems to me that it is similar to the military. It is very difficult to crank out that old-boys network which I think people are not even aware of a lot of times. It is kind of a cultural condition- ing. There are a lot of things that you cannot just objectively analyze. It is a subjective thing. That worries me here because I don't see us breaking away from that kind of collegial board and those kinds of problems. So if you want to furnish affirmative action, you may have to say "no" to some of your boards. Yet, presumably, the boards are the au- thentic way and there is no way to measure whether or not the board is biased. Secretary VANCE. Let me answer by giving you several different points. First, I felt it was essential that we should include in this bill which is before you, a. legislative statement of our goal with respect to affirmative action and the importance of affirmative action, so it is specifically stated in this bill that one of its objectives is to foster the development of policies and procedures which will facilitate and en- courage entry into and advancement in the Foreign Service by persons from all segments of the American society with equal opportunity and fair and equitable treatment for all without regard to national origin, race, sex, marital status or handicapping condition. I think it is impor- tant for the Congress to put its stamp on this, too, and to say this is a fundamental principle that guides us. Now in connection with the implementation of that fundamental concept which is stated in this legislation, we have made it very clear and we make it clear in the precepts to the selection panels that this is an important factor that should be taken into account. When it comes to appointments to deputy assistant secretaries, for exam- ple, I have charged those who come with recommendations to me to make sure that on those lists there is a broad representation of not only minorities but women as well, so that when we make the selection I am sure that we have before us across-the-board repre- sentatives and not just people who are known to their colleagues. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. Do you agree with President Carter's statement that our embassies abroad are overstaffed? Secretary VANCE. Insofar as the State Department is concerned, we now have it pared down to what I think is really the minimum. We are operating with the same number of personnel that we did some 20 years ago, and this despite the facts that the problems which we face are much more complex and that we have so many more countries to deal with than we did in the past. If you are talking about the total number of people who are carried in the mission in a country. yes. I think they are still overstaffed, but that is because we have elements from many other different agencies and departments which are included in the total mission. We have been going through a review during the last year in which we have been trying to cut down and we have cut down on the numbers. We have not cut sufficiently and we are going to continue to prune and reduce the size. Actually, Ben points out to me that the State Department consti- tutes less than 20 percent of personnel contained in the average embassy. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think some of the main problems our committee is going to have with this legislation, in all candor, are : We feel very strongly that part of the whole reform of the Federal Government is to bring in the notion of pay for performance. Yet, it appears that you have discarded the notion of merit pay for upper level Foreign Service officers. The SES model has not really been followed in the same way. There is also some question as to why you need another group, why you can't rely on the FLRA for your labor-management system. Why do we have to create a new one? There is some concern about whether or not the employee protections that have been extended to the Civil Service through the Office of Spe- cial Counsel can be utilized also in the Foreign Service. Since we are using title VII in the Panamanian legislation and title VII for all civil service employees in the continental United States, why is title VII not also adequate to pick up and superimpose on the Foreign Service? I realize these are all very complex and we probably can't answer them here, but I think there are things that we are going to be really fine tuning and asking as we go through this legislation. I think it would be less than fair if I didn't point that out. I think we are also concerned to find out whether or not you think that Foreign Service officers are underpaid. Whether or not we are really doing anything in this legislation for the Consular Corps which has been of great concern. Now there are other people wanting to ask questions but that is where we are coming from. Secretary VANCE. We are prepared to answer all of those questions. I do want to comment on the first point you made because I have made a very difficult decision which I made myself on whether or not to include merit pay for the younger officers. I support very strongly performance pay for those who will be in the Senior Foreign Service. I think that that is an excellent idea. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 However, when I took a close look at the question of merit pay at the middle levels, and I discussed this with many, many midlevel and junior officers and I discussed it with senior officers as well, I was con- vinced that there is a clear distinction between those at that level being awarded merit pay in lieu of step increases and those being awarded performance pay at the higher level. Why? Let me give you two of the reasons. In the first place, I think it is much more difficult at that point to be able to select in terms of monetary compensation pay which would be meaningful to one mid- level officer as against another. Second, there is a grave concern that if this is done, the net result will be that there will not be the usual salary increases to compensate for cost-of-living increases and that the Congress will simply not permit that to go forward. The result is that the people in those grades are going to be hurt rather than helped. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you to the committee and I am sure you understand the importance of this legislation. I happen to believe that with all its deficiencies we already have the finest For- eign Service in the world and it is my hope whatever we do here will serve to strengthen and not confuse that situation. I begin, Mr. Secretary, by associating myself with the concerns of the gentlewoman from Colorado pertaining to affirmative action and its importance throughout the Government. Then second, section 333 entitled "Family Member of Government Employees," contains a somewhat watered down version of the language that already passed in this area. As you know, we had expressed some concern about the resources that were available among family members of Foreign Serv- ice officers that we were not utilizing. Now a good many talented peo- ple might well serve our country and it is my understanding you decided to try the program on an experimental basis in 15 posts. It is my further understanding that although some 15 to 20 jobs were originally identified as jobs suitable under the program, by the time the regulations were sent to the post last month, some 9 months after they were enacted, there was only one job open and it was not sure even a family member will get that. So it seems to me this is not a good pilot. I wanted to ask if there can't be further action toward implementa- tion. I am pleased this section is in the bill, but I wonder if there can't be some more substantial implementation of the present law. Even on a pilot basis it seems this is pretty high. Secretary VANCE. First let me say that I do not consider section 333 to be a watering down, I think it reflects the current law. As to the details of some of the matters that you have raised, Mr. Buchanan, I would like to ask Ben Read to comment on them. STATEMENT OF HON. BEN H. READ, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MANAGEMENT Mr.. READ. As you know, Mr. Buchanan, we do have a very limited pilot- program underway. I agree with you that we can get more life Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 and steam into it, and I will be glad to report on the progress made and the intent to carry it out beyond its current status at a suitable time. Mr. BUCHANAN. I just think if we have some of the people who are not U.S. nationals-and we do have some really talented people we are not using-I think it might be good for everybody if we could have a stronger use and a stronger attempt perhaps to reach out to those people and use those facilities. I have no further questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Pritchard. Mr. PRITCHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your coming up here to the Hill, Mr. Secretary, when you are under so many problems these days. Let me just say that as a basic philosophy I would hope that Con- gress in this type of an area would say how do you want to run this thing and if it is within reason we say OK go ahead and then we keep your feet to the fire and judge you on results. Mr. FASCELL. Oh, that is too easy. Mr. PRITCHARD. I am all for that, it is better management, but it is very difficult for Congress to operate in a management approach so we do get into a lot of nitpicking. On a matter of policy I have a couple of questions. We all know how important morale is to the small Foreign Service Officer Corps and the significance of maintaining a separate identity and role for our diplomats. Now does the new Foreign Service Act tend to blur the identity of the new FSO Corps within the larger Gov- ernment personnel system and if true, would this not have a negative impact on Foreign Service morale f Secretary VANCE. If that were the fact, it would. In my judgment it does not. It does the contrary. I think it reaffirms the importance of the Foreign Service and of excellence in the Foreign Service and it takes the necessary steps to make sure that that in fact is what is going to be carried out. I think it strengthens rather than derogates from the Foreign Serv- ice and the personnel within the Foreign Service, and I think that as a result of the passage of this act we will have a stronger Foreign Service. Mr. PRITCHARD. I understand that you want Congress to complete consideration of the Foreign Service Act this year. What timeframe do you envision and will the State Department be ready with the ma- chinery to implement such a mass of complex procedures and regula- tions once the proposal becomes law? What is your timetable here? Secretary VANCE. The answer to your first question is "yes," we are prepared to and will be able to implement when the Congress acts on this. I hope very much that the Congress will act this year and if they do, then we are prepared to implement. Mr. PRITCHARD. Would you say that it is very important that we act this year? Secretary VANCE. I think it is very important that you act this year. Mr. PRITCHARD. Thank vou. I would agree with you. I am concerned about what I feel is an attitude of pushing this and pushing it down. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Secretary VAr CE. Well, orre of the reasons I wanted to come up and testify today even though it is just a couple of days after I got back from Vienna and I have to testify or appear at the OAS meeting this afternoon with the Foreign Ministers is because I consider this to be of fundamental importance to our Foreign Service. The sooner we get at it and get this to be. legislation passed, the better off all of us are going Mr. PxrTCHARD. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. All right. I must say at this point that the Secretary has to my knowledge devoted a great deal of his time to this matter, not only in reviewing the legislation but in the intensive work that went on for a long time within the administration. Now this is not a matter that has been delegated to very able people like Ben Read and others. This is something that the Secretary himself has interested himself in and I think that is the reason we are moving on this finally. Mr. Mica. Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.' First I would like to commend my colleague and chairman from Florida and the chairwoman, Mrs. Schroeder, for joining these things together to save us both time on this. I understand the seriousness of the subject and the need to act immediately. Also I would like to commend the Secretary. You have been before our committee on numerous occasions and I think your preparation, particularly after having gone through the SALT negotiation, on this is excellent. I might just mention that one of the questions that went through my mind immediately after your testimony and the chairman's first question was you had eight points that you answered very precisely from that little blue book and then the chairwoman asked a question and you had very good points. My question is who pre-pared the little blue book? I will pass on that one. I would like to know and share some concern. First, what is the projected cost basically of the old system? Secretary VANCE. The projected cost in terms of actual dollars I will ask Mr. Read to give you, but I can tell you that the net cost or the objective is that there will be no direct net cost increase. Now when performance pay is authorized and when it is determined within the executive branch how much the performance pay will be, in other words how much will each of the departments be permitted to devote to that, then I could give you that figure but other than that it is no additional cost, no promotions or demotions flowing from this. In other words, we are trying to do it on the basis of the status quo insofar as cost is concerned. Mr. MICA. Within the Foreign Service personnel is there great sup- port or opposition to this proposal? Secretary VANCE. Within the Foreign Service I would say that I think that there is a substantial majority that supports the. legislation. There are some who disagree, as one would expect, with various parts. Some people do not agree with the concept of a Senior Foreign Service which I happen to think is of great importance and I think Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 that the majority of people believe that it is of great importance. I think there is a broad majority consensus in favor of many of the principal features of the bill. Mr. MICA. At least 51 percent? Secretary VANCE. I think greater than that. I think the affirmation of the role of the Foreign Service and its importance as a distant entity and not something that should be consolidated into the civil service, the idea is that there should be a separate Foreign Service, has broad support. There is broad support for conversion to civil service status of the Foreign Service personnel who are: not going to be serving overseas. There is broad support for the labor management provisions of the bill which we have put before you. There is broad support for a single Foreign Service pay scale. There is broad support for the consolidation of the multiple For- eign Service personnel categories into two categories. The new procedures to assure that up-and-out rules will be carried out and carried out effectively is broadly supported. So on these fundamental essential principles I think that you will find, and you will see this from those who come to testify before you, that there is broad support and that is more than 51 percent. Mr. MICA. Basically we are being told there will be good manage- ment and it will cost no more. Secretary VANCE. You are being told this. But you will also find that there are provisions of the bill with which some will disagree. I have consulted with AFSA and they will be coming to testify before you. Mr. MICA. Are they supporting you. Secretary VANCE. They will have to speak for themselves on this. I know on a number of issues they will support it. I think they should speak for themselves and I should not try to speak for them, but I have benefited, I can tell you, from my consultations with them. Mr. MICA. Have they taken a public position for or against the entire bill? Secretary VANCE. Not in its current form that is before you now. They ought to speak for themselves on its current form because we sent drafts to them as we went along. They commented on those var- ious drafts. They pointed out areas which they did not disagree with. I sat down with them after having studied what they were against and in some cases said, yes, I agree with you and changed what there was in the draft. In other cases I disagreed and said no, and gave my reasons why I did not agree with them and did not accept their recom- mendations. So they should speak for themselves. Mr. MICA. Thank you. Just one final comment. In our first meeting here Secretary VANCE. Let me say one more thing that you should have in answer to your question. The Board of the Foreign Service has endorsed the bill as I am presenting it to you. Mr. MICA. In our first meeting here we discussed the Iranian situa- tion and I indicated to you that I had had feedback from professionals who had a feeling that there was a policy, although unwritten, that feedback to the Department was being stifled, was not encouraged, and that to a certain extent caused some of our misreadings of the Iranian situation. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I realize that this does not get into the details of this legislation, but I would hope that every portion of this legislation and any other legislation dealing with the Department would encourage all seg- ments of the Foreign Service to have some type of input. I under- stand it must be logical and systematical and so on, and proper proto- col, but I think possibly along with the Ambassador.-the clerk at the front desk in an embassy may have some insight as to what is going on in a nation and ought to have some way to get that information back to appropriate channels. The information I continue to get is that there is a reluctance and a feeling within the Department not to do this, that if you contradict even unofficially the senior officials that it may reflect fully on your career. Thank you. Secretary VAxcE. As far as I am concerned I welcome criticism, I welcome suggestions, and I find that I learn a great deal through what is reported to me from embassies and from what I hear when I go to the various embassies and talk with the personnel there. I think that the only way you can run an organization is to have a free and open channel where people can express their differences or their sug- gestions as to how to improve the system. I have been around long enough to know that this does not always get through, and I am sure .that a lot of people feel that they are not being listened to, but they are and should be as a matter of princi- ple, and let me say the provisions of the bill support this principle. Mr. MICA. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. SCHROEDER [presiding]. Congressman Leach. Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have certain concerns about the approaches outlined in this bill, but I would like to say that I strongly appreciate your personal view and say that as a former Foreign Service officer I was often struck by the negligence of top management of the Department of State in dealing with the Foreign Service. Your involvement and interest is extraordinary and much to be commended. I might say that this bill does two things in effect. One, it deals with design of structure. Second, it deals with method of compensation. In 19711 wrote a study for AFSA on compensation. As you know comparability is a very difficult thing to achieve. One approach to com- parability, with which my particular study dealt, is simply compara- bility with the civil service. Partly because of management negligence, partly because of a lack of understanding and too much desire to be independent, the Foreign Service really didn't realize how much it had started to lag behind the civil service in general. It is very difficult, as almost anyone knows who deals with this issue, to come up with jobs comparable to what a Foreign Service officer does. Therefore, one of my original theories was to say let's just compensate people on a comparable basis with what they would be earning in the civil service per se. In any respect it is very clear that the Foreign Service today is inade- quately compensated, and. therefore it is with a little bit of surprise that I listened to you comment that there will be no net cost increase. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Are you saying that you are going to turn your back on the Hay Asso- ciates study or that you will not be attempting to establish compensa- tion comparable to the civil service? Secretary VANCE. There will be comparability, but as you know the pay study has just come in. We have transmitted it to the Congress. We are in the process of reviewing it within the executive branch, not only within the Department of State but obviously within the Office of Man- agement and Budget. That will take a while to do. In addition, AID and ICA are going to have to review the study. Until we have been able to review this matter entirely within the exec- utive branch, I think we are just going to have to stay where we are at this point. If at the end of that review we conclude that other steps are necessary to be taken, I am going to be first to say let's go forward and do it but at this point there is no final decision. Mr. LEACH. Let me just say that when you develop the methodology to accomplish the conversions contemplated in the bill and there is a tie-in between your top three positions, for example, and GS-18, the second and third positions with GS-16, or possibly GS-15, an immedi- ate salary increase is implied. If it is done across the board and done correctly because the study demonstrates that current salaries are lower than they should be, I don't know how the mathematics can work out so that there is no increase involved, unless you perhaps are contem- plating staging it in overtime. Secretary VANCE. On the mathematics of that I would like to ask Mr. Read to comment on it and flesh out what I have to say. Mr. READ. The Office of Management and Budget people, Mr. Leach, made it very clear that in their role as one of the two pay agents of the President that they were the ones that would look at the pay study and determine the correctness of its methodology and concur or not con- cur with the evidence of inadequate pay comparability that is strongly provided in some cases but not in other cases, as you will see from the study which has been submitted. But they were willing to let the bill go forward saying that when an administration position was devel- oped, it would be submitted without delay to the Hill. Mr. LEACH. Let me say, just in doing my own mathematics, it strikes me as completely inconsistent to say that the bill can stand as proposed without the recognition that it will cost more because it clearly will cost more. If it does not cost more, then you are going to have to go through some sort of convoluted process whereby you transfer cur- rent Foreign Service officers, possibly at a lower step, into the new system. One of the things that I was looking at in an earlier version of this legislation, considered by the Department, was the truly critical issue of how the initial transfers take place-to what grades you transfer people. That initial proposal was of monumental consequence. The program could have been carried out in positive fashion. On the other hand, it could have been carried out in negative fashion. Unless one is willing to make a strong statement about the likeli- hood that it will cost more-and it might be that you would want to come up with a staggered 3-year period, hopefully not 4 or 5, but say 3 years with the recognition of greater costs over the long term-I would be gravely concerned that the Foreign Service system would be taking a step backward rather than forward. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I might say in this regard that if you go by direct cost, rather than the comparability figure, you are going to be behind the eight ball. I suspect that with regard to any issue vis a vis the Foreign Service, the top echelon in State is going to have to take an extremely strong stand on the comparability issue with the OMB. If the Foreign Service is not defended on this issue, what we could see is a new structure but. not one which is beneficial or encourages advancement. Mr. READ. I would like to say that I have given that commitment to the Foreign Service and will fulfill it. I consider it a matter of good faith to do so, but what I am not in a position to do today is to say what will be accepted or not accepted as the administration position. Mr. LEACH. I would only respond by saying that as a Member of Congress it would be very difficult to vote positively or negatively on this bill unless the economic ramifications were clearly spelled out and the support of OMB or the position of OMB made definitive. Mr. READ. The OMB is setting up a task force and has promised to proceed without delay to consider the study and its implications. It is an extremely thorough study as you will see when you examine it and looks not only at the rest of the Federal service but at the overseas private sector. It contains many points of reinforcement along these lines. Mr. LEACH. Thank you. I don't want to belabor the point. I appre- ciate your coming and particularly, Mr. Secretary, your involvement in this. I think there is an enormous opportunity for you to make a majestic impact on the whole future of the U.S. Foreign Service and your involvement and interest is something that I think will redound to your great credit. Secretary VANCE. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Barnes. Mr. BARNES. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am not a member of either of the subcommittees. I am very grate- ful to you and to the gentlelady from Colorado, too, for inviting the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I am grateful to have the chance to be here. Particularly I am pleased that the Secretary of State this week in the midst of all that is going on would take the time to come to the Hill and to stress the importance of this legislation. I want to take my moment here to commend you, Mr. Secretary, for the great success of the past 10 days or so and hope that our colleagues on the other side of the Hill see the wisdom of what you and the President have achieved with respect to the negotiations with the Soviet Union. I think it is a great achievement for our Nation and I, just as one Member of Congress, want to publicly commend you for your leadership and very important role in what has taken place. Secretary VANCE. Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Mr. BARNES. I had just a couple of questions with respect to the legislation that is being considered by the subcommittees in this joint hearing. How will the enactment of the legislation. Mr. Secretary, affect the existing relationships among State and AID and ICA, and does the Department have the support of AID and ICA in the present revision of the legislation? Secretary VANCE. What we have strived to do is to achieve the maximum compatibility that is possible and to integrate the steps that Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 we are taking here with those which would be taken by ICA and by AID. Both John Reinhardt and the Acting AID Director, Bob Nooter, will be testifying before you. Yesterday I sat with them as we prepared a statement to our respective personnel in the three various agencies. All of us at that time expressed support for the bill as developed. John and Bob should speak for themselves precisely on any details, but as far as the overall bill is concerned, I can say that we are all in support of the action which we are proposing to you. Mr. BARNES. Will this continue to apply to AID under the new IDCA structure? Secretary VANCE. The answer is "Yes." Mr. BARNES. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. FASCELL. Do you have any other questions? Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Secretary, let me say that my ranking minority member, that you have now met, Mr. Leach, is a real expert on this. He will be guiding us very carefully through this, and I am sure he will ask many questions. Thank you again for coming this morning. Secretary VANCE. Thank you very much, Mrs. Schroeder. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Let me add my commendation to you for your distinguished service to the country in a very troublesome time. I am sure there will be a Cy Vance Award. I guess you heard about the colloquy on the floor yesterday. There are many eager recipients and you might want to consider it. Secretary VANCE. Thank you very much. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Read. Mr. READ. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Schroeder, other members of the committee. This is the end of a long effort and the beginning of another, and I am delighted to be here to present this bill to you in slightly expanded form from the Secretary's presenta- tion this morning. Secretary Vance has described for the committee the principal features of the proposed new Foreign Service Act. With your con- sent, I will concentrate on three aspects of the bill which represent the most significant departures from existing law and practice: One, simplification and rationalization of the Department's dual Foreign Service-civil service personnel systems; Two, the Foreign Service career performance requirements for tenure, compensation, promotion, and retention; and Three, employee-management relations and related matters. I think those opening remarks will answer two of the main points of concern that Mrs. Schroeder referred to in her statement to the Secretary. Turning first to the Foreign Service-civil service relationship in the Department of State, the bill would resolve a longstanding dis- pute by its acceptance of and clear distinction between the Depart- ment's dual Foreign Service-civil service systems. Advocates of the dual systems as well as advocates of inclusion of both worldwide and domestic categories in a single Foreign Service system have seen their competing views reflected in various congres- sional, executive branch, public, and private studies spanning three decades. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 The dual systems, which was an underlying premise of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, were supported in three major reports by the Wriston Committee in 1954,. by AFSA in 1968, and by the Murphy Commission in 1975. The unitary worldwide system was backed by the Hoover Com- mission in 1949, the administration-supported but unsuccessful Hays bill in 1965-66, and the "Diplomacy for the Seventies" report in 1970. Starting in 1971, the Department and USIA (now USICA) ini- tiated an administrative personnel policy based on a limited single service concept. Special inducements, including both partial or comm plete exemption from overseas service, were offered to civil service employees in both agencies who converted to Foreign Service status. By 1975 the Department was criticized in a report by the Civil Service Commission for its neglect and lack of career opportunities for its civil service employees. The problems with making the single service system work were recognized explicitly at the end of the Ford administration in the Department's interim report on January 10, 1977, to Congress in response to the 1976 enactment calling for a "comprehensive plan" to improve and simplify its personnel systems. That report found that: ~~* * * A central reality which no earlier study or plan has changed-although some may not have faced it fully-is the existence of a domestic category of people in the Depart- ment and USIA who supply essential skills and continuity of service which cannot be met effectively by a worldwide service. "Our examination of past efforts to create a single service has made clear that the Foreign Service Act cannot serve as an instrument to manage a domestic service. Efforts to implement this program have not been successful. Uniformity has not brought equity or manage- ment efficiency." We agree fully with these conclusions. The lack of success of the administrative policy to achieve a single system is illustrated by the fact that there were approximately 3,100 civil service personnel in State when the policy went into effect in 1971. There are approximately the same number today. Many persons providing policy and support assistance essential to the Department's ability to conduct foreign affairs are needed and willing to serve in Washington only. But 600 persons with such purely domestic orientation in State have been given Foreign Service status ; 900 in USICA, with the resulting cited management inefficiencies. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, as the committee well knows, provides numerous improvements in the conditions of civil service rank-in-position employment in all departments and agencies, includ- ing State and USICA, with new opportunities, risks and benefits linked to performance, particularly in the new Senior Executive Service. But as you will also recall, the Foreign Service was exempted from many of the provisions of the 1978 act in recognition of its basically different conditions of service, in particular the need for frequent rotation from position to position and the consequent reliance on a rank-in-person system. The pending bill would recognize the dual Foreign Service-civil service systems and the need to restore a rational and equitable divi- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 sion between them, while promoting compatibility and interchanges between the systems under common principles whenever appropriate. A transition objective of the bill is to convert Foreign Service "domestic" employees to the civil service system, if they are not obligated to accept and are not needed for worldwide, rotational as- signments, and to do so as quickly as possible; but at the same time, to guarantee the protection of individual rights and the preservation of existing pay and benefits. This conversion plan would permit Foreign Service "domestic" employees with skills designated by the Secretary as needed abroad, and who are willing and otherwise qualified to accept true worldwide obligations, to elect to remain in the Foreign Service system. Other Foreign Service domestic employees in the Department of State would have a 3-year period in which to accept conversion to the civil service system or to leave the Department. Conversions to the civil service would take place under the fol- lowing conditions : No loss in salary, and with unlimited protection against downgrading as long as the employee did not voluntarily move to another position; the right to remain in the Foreign Service retirement and disability system (for those already members), or alternatively, to elect to move to the civil service retirement system; and the kind of appointment offered on conversion would parallel that currently held-i.e., career Foreign Service would receive career GS appointments, career candidates would receive probationary or career conditional GS appointments, and those on time-limited ap- pointments would be offered GS time-limited appointments. Second, I would like to emphasize and illustrate the reasons for the features of the bill to which Secretary Vance and I attribute highest importance : Linking the grant. of tenure, advancement, com- ensation, and incentive pay, as well as retention in the Foreign Service more closely to high levels of performance. The interaction of basic elements of a well-working career per- sonnel system and the absolute necessity for closer linkage of such elements to performance than at present has been painfully illus- trated during the last 3 or 4 years, as the committee knows full well. I refer to the impacted situation at senior levels which has caused pervasive problems at all levels and revealed serious structural flaws. This situation has been particularly alleviated in recent weeks, but could recur at any time under slightly different circumstances, and I would like to examine it with some care. For years, many persons in the most senior positions in the Service have been exempted from annual performance evaluation and selec- tion out for substandard performance. This placed heavy reliance on voluntary and mandatory retirement as the primary means of senior attrition which in turn largely determined the limits on pro- motions in all junior and middle ranks. In February of 1977, a long-delayed executive pay raise granted by Congress went into effect and, resulted in more than a 50-percent drop in voluntary retirements because many members of the Service who were considering such retirements understandably decided to serve for 3 years at the new salary rate to obtain fullest pension benefits. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 In June of 1977, a lower court decision prohibited use of the 60- year retirement limit set in the 1946 act on constitutional grounds, and until the ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court in April of this year, mandatory retirements stopped altogether. Thus, largely by the coincidence of two events completely beyond administrative remedy, senior departures from the Service slowed to a mere 5 percent. This situation was aggravated by two additional factors : an admin- istrative move in 1976 to extend to 22 years the combined permissible time in classes 1 and 2, and the actual or virtual cessation in several recent years of selection out for substandard performance. The combination of all these factors required us to set the lowest promotion rates since World War II and to reduce intake accordingly. Obviously, this had a crippling effect on morale, and some excellent and most promising younger persons were lost to the Service as a result. That the Foreign Service has performed as well as it has under the circumstances I think is a tribute to its highly dedicated personnel. To prevent recurrence of such situations, we are suggesting a multi- faceted approach in the bill to achieving higher performance require- ments for all aspects of Service life. The bill would establish a new Senior Foreign Service for the highest three ranks, paralleling with adaptations the new senior executive service. Present career ministers and eligible FSO/FSRU/ FSR-1's and 2's who are obligated and needed for worldwide service could elect to join the Senior Foreign Service within 120 days of the date of enactment of the bill. Membership in the SFS during and after transition would involve greater benefits and risks based on performance. Performance pay would be available for outstanding service within the same limits as provided for the Senior Executive Service in the 1978 law, but with greater stress on analysis, policy advice, and the other factors which determine success in the Senior Foreign Service. Variable short time-in-class rules and selection out of relative sub- standard performance on the recommendations of annual selection boards are procedures which are retained and tightened and made applicable for the first time to all members of the highest three ranks of the Service. Current voluntary and mandatory retirement provisions of the law, which are vital for the proper operation of the Service, are retained without change. Under a new proposed procedure, members of the Senior Foreign Service and other members of the Service whose maximum time in class expires after they reach the highest class for their respective personnel categories, may continue to serve under renewable limited extensions of their career appointments, not to exceed 5 years. Such extensions would be granted only on the basis of selection board recommendations and the needs of the Service. A rigorous SFS threshold procedure is proposed under which mem- bers of the Foreign Service at the new threshold class (FS-1) must request consideration for promotion into the SFS and then would remain eligible for a period of time, say 5 years, which would be specified by the Secretary. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 20 .If not promoted on the recommendation of the selection boards during that time, the member would be "passed over," a concept bor- rowed from the military-and they would no longer be eligible for promotion into the SFS. This, it is expected, could enable such per- sons to make more timely second career decisions than now permitted under our current system. Middle and junior ranks of the Foreign Service are also more close- ly tied to performance. After transition to the new system, selection out for substandard performance would be applicable for the first time to all Foreign Service personnel. The bill would require all persons seeking career Foreign Service status at any level to pass a strict tenuring process. A career status is presently conferred almost automatically in many cases. Within-class salary increases could be added or withheld for out- standing or poor performance on the basis of selection board recom- mendations in the middle grades. All of these performance-related features and others would enable the Foreign Service to overcome and avoid the crippling structural defects, such as the ones I have cited, which now encumber the system and deter advancement and retention of the ablest. I am confident that it would produce a stronger, more professional, and efficient Service better equipped to meet its heavy future re- quirements. And third, the bill includes a new chapter 10 governing employee- management relations, replacing Executive Order 11636 which has covered such matters since 1971. Mr. FASCELL. We have a rollcall vote. We will recess and go vote on the Kramer of Colorado amendment. We will be back momentarily. Mr. READ. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the joint subcommittees recessed, to reconvene at 11:10 a.m.] Mr. FABCELL. Mr. Secretary. Mr. READ. Mr. Chairman, picking up-I had just gotten to the third and final one of the three major points that I wanted to stress in my statement, employee-management relations and related matters. I was saying that we are proposing a new chapter 10 in the bill before you to govern such relationships, replacing Executive Order 11636 which has covered such matters since 1971. The Department favors placing employee management on a sound statutory basis for several reasons. The existing executive order states that the Foreign Affairs agen- cies should take into account developments elsewhere in the Federal Government. It would be unfair to deny Foreign Service. employees a legislative labor-management program when one has been granted to over 2 mil- lion other Federal employees in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The chapter is an essential element of the bill in that it adapts to the special needs of the Foreign Service the labor-management pro- gram provided for other Federal employees. It guarantees employees the right to participate in matters which have a direct bearing on their careers. The chapter differs from the present Executive order in the following key aspects. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 It creates an independent Foreign Service Labor Relations Board consisting of the chairman, Federal Labor Relations Authority and two public members. It excludes certain personnel, security, inspection, and audit officials from the bargaining unit. It gives the exclusive representative organization the right to be present at formal meetings between management and employees. It provides for judicial review of decisions by the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board. It provides for the negotiation of an organizational disputes resolu- tion mechanism which is new. In a related provision in chapter 11 on grievances, the exclusive employee bargaining organization must represent or agree to other representation in the processing of employee grievances. In addition, only the exclusive representative may invoke access to the Foreign Service Grievance Board. There are, of course, many other important features of the bill, such as the provisions for reducing to two below the Senior Foreign Service the more than a dozen existing personnel categories and subcategories and for placing them under a single service pay scale; for Foreign Service spouses; and family members; for equal opportunity; and for greater compatibility among the personnel systems of the agencies authorized to use Foreign Service personnel. But I think you may find it preferable to get at those issues through the summaries and section-by-section analysis we have submitted and through your questions. the last 7 months, to distinguish between certain kinds of issues and questions: (a) General ones relating to the purposes of the bill and its background; (b) those set forth in the 12 chapters of title I of the bill relating to the proposed future Foreign Service Act .personnel system once fully implemented; and (c) transitional problems covered in title II which relates to moving from the existing to the proposed system. Finally, there are a set of closely related nonstatutory questions not covered by the bill which have to do with questions of present and future administration and implementation of the proposed new act. may help for you to think of them in those categories. Harry Barnes. Director General of the. Fnre.;vn \PrvleP an.i T)irPn- for of Personnel, Jim Michel, Deputy Legal Adviser and principal draftsman of the bill, and I will be glad to try to respond now or would be of assistance to members of the committee. Thank you very much for your attention. Mr. FnscELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I think this is a matter of procedure. We will go to general ques- tions first and then if it is agreeable with Mrs. Schroeder we will go nto the detail of the. bill. Mrs. Schroeder. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am not sure which of my questions will be quali- led as general and which are qualified as specific. Mr. FASCELL. Ask them anyway. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. Let me ask a question that we have been asking a lot in our committee. In our committee we have had trouble with OMB wanting to look at everybody's testimony on the bill when they bring it up and we call that kissing through a picket fence. So what I want to know is whether you have cleared this with OMB or not at this point? Mr. READ. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What did it look like before and what did it look like after it came through the picket fence? Mr. READ. I am delighted to say that the changes were stylistic and not substantive that were suggested yesterday. Mrs. SCHROEDER. However we could see those stylistic changes to make sure that we would have the same interpretation, do you think? Mr. READ. If you request, I will seek such authority. Mr. FASCELL. Just an abundance of caution, you understand, Mr. Secretary. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have many, many specific questions. I don't know quite where to begin. Well, in selecting candidates for the Foreign Service I have been really surprised to look at your tests and find out how differently each year you have weighed different segments. Our committee has been go- ing into civil service tests for quite a bit of time. I have never seen a test that one year you weigh one section this amount and the next year you do something else and it appears to be incredibly haphazard. Do you have any comment on that and is there any way to get that under control? Mr. READ. I will ask Harry Barnes to comment in more detail, but it has been a process which I have seen worked on and efforts made to perfect over a 10-year period. We have sought and obtained the advice of the Educational Testing Service at Princeton to help us remove from the questions any element of bias that may be part of the examination. The exams are gone over with enormous care to remove any vestiges of such bias remaining in them. I would note that this is an adminis- trative implementation area, not a statutory one, but we have made strenuous efforts to improve. Harry Barnes could probably provide more details. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY BARNES, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE Mr. BARNES. The changes that have been brought in in the last couple of years have been very many, a number in connection with EEO concerns. Mrs. SCHROEDER. See, that is what bothers me. I cannot figure out what in the world it is that you are doing. If you change the rating every year, maybe women do better on language portions, therefore, we will take in more women. I think in the private sector you would get in great trouble doing that. I hear you saying that and Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 yet I really do not see from the statistics that you have taken in more minorities or more women because of this. I tried to figure whether the test is geared toward the job performance. I have heard your commit- ment to affirmative action but I have not heard any result that has made that work. Mr. BARNES. Let me clarify what I was trying to get at. The types of changes I am talking about have been largely initiated through the assistance of the Educational Testing Service at Princeton getting at those factors which would seem to prejudice, which would seem to cause difficulties for minorities or women. If you like, that is a type of screening, a type of verification. The other thing we have been struggling with in the past couple of years has been trying to make the tests more job related. Here it is in part the reflection of some of our own concerns as to whether we have been giving tests that tie in closely enough to what we require. To go into perhaps somewhat more detail, in the Foreign Service Officer Corps we have been trying to find the right balance and I would submit this not so much haphazard as perhaps an attempt to find the right mix and not being satisfied we had found the right mix. The combination of those tests which will show what skills people have that make them probably better suited, say, for the consular functions, say, as com- pared to the economic function. Those tests which provide the type of general background, say, on such questions as American culture and history would be a requisite for everyone concerned. We have also been making some adaptations. I don't know whether you were thinking just in terms of written examination. We have been making some adaptations to the oral examinations again in order to get a closer approximation of the sorts of people we think we need. If we could comment on one of your specific points in terms of sort of results showed, we are increasing the number of people who are coming in through the examination process, both in terms of women and in terms of minorities. You are also familiar, and I can go into more detail, with the affirmative action program as we have which are focused in that area. Mr. FASCELL. Will you yield right there at that point? Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Will you supply for the record the total number of personnel you have in the Foreign Service. number of women, mi- norities, and by grades so that we can have before us some kind of a guide? Mr. READ. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. And the rate of progress through the promotion boards and whether or not they like to travel. Mr. BARNES. You notice we stress worldwide availability. We like to travel. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Good. Mr. FASCELL. You guys do better than the Congress, I will tell you that. [The material referred to follows:] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 24 NUMERICAL SUMMARY OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE [By category, grade level, male/female, and minority group representation] Dec. 31, 1977 Dec. 31, 1978 Percent Total Women Percent Total Women Percent difference FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS (FSO) CA------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CM---------------------------------- 39 -------------------- 38 ------------------------------ FSO-1 ------------------------------- 341 8 2.3 335 11 3.3 +1.0 FSO-2------------------------------- 310 8 2.6 315 9 2.9 +.3 Subtotal, senior level------------ 690 16 2.3 688 20 2.9 +.6 ------------------------ FSO-3 655 39 6.0 683 40 5.9 -.1 0 1 ------- ---------------------- FSO-4 803 51 6.4 773 57 7.4 + . 9 --------- FSO-5------------------------------- 590 85 14.4 613 94 15.3 +. Subtotal, middle level----------- 2,048 175 8.5 2,069 191 9.2 +.7 --------------------------- FSO-6 397 75 18.9 486 104 21.4 +2.5 ---- ------------------------ FSO-7 318 ;57 17.9 160 26 16.3 3 ------- FSO-8------------------------------- 61 14 23.0 11 3 27.3 +4. Subtotal, junior level------------ 776 146 18.8 657 133 20.2 +1.4 Total, FSO--------------------- 3,514 337 9.6 3,414 344 10.1 +.5 FOREIGN SERVICE RESERVE (FSR) FSR-1 -------------------- 60 3 5.0 49 3 6.1 +1.1 ----------- FSR-2------------------------------- 126 6 4.8 119 11 9.2 +4.4 Subtotal, senior level------------ 186 9 9.8 168 14 8.3 +3.5 FSR-3 ---------------------------- 198 19 9.6 178 15 8.4 -1.2 --- -------------------------- FSR-4 285 51 17.9 270 35 13.0 -4.9 ----- FSR-5------------------------------- 378 64 16.9 430 72 16.7 -.2 Subtotal, middle level----------- 861 134 15.6 878 122 13.9 -1.7 FSR-6 ------------------ 462 105 22.7 476 87 18.3 -4.4 ------------- FSR-7 --------------------- 534 110 20.6 592 106 17.9 -2.7 ---------- FSR-8------------------------------- 183 20 10.9 130 24 18.5 +7.6 Subtotal, junior level------------ 1,179 .235 19.9 1,198 217 18.1 -1.8 Total, FSR--------------------- 2,226 378 17.0 2,244 353 15.7 -1.3 FOREIGN SERVICE RESERVE UN- LIMITED (FSRU) FSRU-1----------------------------- FSRU-2------------------------------ 107 6 5.6 109 5 4.6 -1.0 Subtotal senior level------------- 156 6 3.8 165 5 3.0 -.8 FSRU-3------------------------------ 108 21 19.4 146 .16 11.0 -8.4 ---------------------------- FSRU-4 124 lE 12.9 191 33 17.3 +4.4 -- FSRU-5------------------------------ 109 38 34.9 173 48 27.7 -7.2 Subtotal middle level------------ 341 75 22.0 510 97 19.0 -3.0 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 NUMERICAL SUMMARY OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE-Continued [By category, grade level, male/female, and minority group representationj Total Women Percent Total Women Percent difference FOREIGN SERVICE RESERVE UN- LIMITED (FSRU)-Continued FSRU-6 ______________________________ 166 FSRU-7 31 18.7 183 39 21 3 +2 6 ------------------------------ 97 FSRU-8 11 11.6 98 16 . . 16.3 +4 7 ------------------------------ 9 1 11.1 8 . +11.1 Subtotal junior level_____________ 270 43 15.9 289 55 19.0 +3.1 Total FSRU_____________________ 767 124 16.2 964 157 16.3 +.1 FOREIGN SERVICE STAFF (FSSO/FSS) FSSO-1 ------------------------------ 57 FSSO-2 10 17.5 52 10 19 2 +1 7 ------------------- ___________ 98 FSSO-3 26 26.5 102 30 . . 29.4 2 9 ______________171 49 28.7 181 51 . 28.2 -.5 Subtotal middle level ------------ 326 85 26.1 335 91 27.2 +1.1 FSSO-4------------------------------ FSSO-5--------------------------- ----------------------- 262 464 131 238 50.0 51.3 245 570 137 349 55.9 +5.9 61.2 +9.9 FSSO-8------------------------ ______ FSSO-9 506 353 69.8 310 204 65 8 -4 0 ______________________________ FSSO-10 100 57 57.0 108 69 . . 63.9 9 +6 _____________ 41 37 90.2 37 34 . 91.9 +1.7 Subtotal support level___________ 647 447 69.1 455 307 67.5 -1.6 Total FSSO/FSS--------------- 2,529 1,416 56.0 2,539 1,438 56.6 +.6 ALL FOREIGN SERVICE (FSO/R/RU AND FSS/FSSO) CA ------------ --------------------- CM----------------- FSO/R/RU-1 39 - ---------- --- 38 -------- __________________________ 450 FSO/R/RU-2________ 543 11 20 2.4 440 14 3.2 +.9 _____.......... 3.7 543 25 4.6 +.9 Subtotal senior level_____________ 1,032 31 3.0 1,021 39 3.8 +,8 FSO/R/RU-3/FSSO-1______________1,018 FSO/R/RU 4 FSSO 2 89 8.7 1,059 81 7 6 -1 1 / - - ____________ 1,310 FSO/R/RU 5 FS 144 11.0 1336 155 . . 11 6 + 6 - / SO-3_________.......... 1, 248 236 18.9 1, 397 265 . . 19.0 +,1 Subtotal middle level____________ 3,576 469 13.1 3,792 501 13.2 +.1 FSO/R/RU-6/FSSO-4___________ _ 1,287 FSO/R/RU-7/FSSO-5 1 255 342 26.6 1,390 367 26.4 -.2 ______ , -6 775 FSO/R/RU /FS-7 7 464 385 344 30.6 1184 359 44. 4 749 370 30.3 -.3 49.4 9.9 _____________ 238 51.3 570 349 61.2 + ~}9.9 Subtotal junior level_____________ 3,781 1,308 34.6 3,893 1,445 37.1 +2.5 FSS-8------------- __________________ 506 FSS -9_ 100 353 69.8 310 204 65.8 -4.0 ------------- FSS - 10 57 57.0 108 69 63.9 +6 9 ------------- _______________ 41 37 90.2 37 34 . 91.9 +1.7 Subtotal support level...-------- 647 447 69.1 455 307 67.5 -1.6 Total FS_______________________ 9,036 2,255 25.0 9,161 2,292 25.0 .......... Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 NUMERICAL SUMMARY OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE-Continued SUMMARY BY PAY PLAN Total Total Total Total Percent popula- minori- popula- minori- difter- tion ties Percent tion ties Percent ence FOREIGN SERVICE CA ---- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ CM -------------------------------- 39 1 2.6 38 1 2.6 7 ---------- 0 2 -- FSO--------------------------------- 3,475 158 4.5 3,376 160 2 4. 9 8 . + + 4 FSR--------------------------------- FSR6-------------------------------- 2,226 767 210 9.4 6.9 2 964 2 1 . 8.8 . 2,529 174 6.9 2,539 183 7.2 +.3 Total Foreign Service------------ 9,036 596 6.6 9,161 650 7.1 +.5 FOREIGN SERVICE RESERVE UNLIMITED (FSRU) FSRU-1 --------------------------- 49 1 2.0 56 1 1.8 -.2 9 --- FSRU-2------------------------------ 107 1 .9 109 2 1.8 +. Subtotal senior level ------------ 156 2 1.3 165 3 1.8 +.5 ---------------------------- FSRU-3 108 5 4.6 146 8 5.5 +.9 -- --------------------------- FSRU-4 124 13 10.5 191 20 10.5 ---------- 9 --- FSRU-5------------------------------ 109 6 5.5 173 11 6.4 +. Subtotal middle level------------ 341 24 7.0 510 39 7.6 +.6 ------------------------ FSRU-6 166 14 8.4 183 26 14.2 +5.8 7 ------ FSRU-7------------------------------ 95 12 12.6 98 16 16.3 5 +3. 4 1 FSRU-8------------------------------ 9 1 11.1 8 1 12. . + Subtotal junior level------------- 270 27 10.0 289 43 14.9 +4.9 Total FSRU--------------------- 767 53 6.9 964 85 8.8 +1.9 FOREIGN SERVICE STAFF (FSSO/FSS) FSSO-1 ---------------------------- 57 2 3.5 52 2 3.8 +.3 8 -- --------------------------- FSSO-2 98 4 4.1 101 5 4.9 +. 2 1 --- FSSO-3------------------------------ 171 13 7.6 181 16 . 8.8 + Subtotal middle level ------------ 326 19 5.8 335 23 6.9 1. 1 ---------------------- - FSSO-4 262 25 9.5 245 25 10.2 +.7 8 ------ - ------------------------- - FSSO-5 308 22 7.1 334 21 6.3 -. --- - --- FSSO-6 522 34 6.5 600 44 7.3 1 --------------------------- FSSO-7----------------------------- 64 33 4 7.1 34 .8 6.0 Subtotal junior level------------- 1,556 114 7.3 1,749 124 7.1 -.2 ------------------------- FSSO-8 506 33 6.5 310 26 8.4 +1.9 4 ----- ---------------------- FSSO-9 100 7 7.0 108 8 7.4 0 -------- FSSO-10----------------------------- 41 1 2.4 37 2 5.4 +3. Subtotal support level----------- 647 41 6.3 455 36 7.9 +1.6 Total FSSO/FSS----------------- 2,529 174 6.9 2,539 183 7.2 +.3 FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER (FSO) CA-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CM---------------------------------- 39 1 2.6 38 1 2.6 ---------- FSO-1------------------------------- 341 8 2.3 335 9 2.7 +.4 FSO-2------------------------------- 310 9 2 9 315 8 2.5 -.4 Subtotal senior level------------- 690 18 2.6 ?688 18 2.6 ---------- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 NUMERICAL SUMMARY OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE-Continued SUMMARY BY PAY PLAN Total popula- tion Total minori- ties Percent Total popula- tion Total Percent minori- differ- ties Percent ence FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER (FSO)- Continued FSO-3------------------------------- 655 16 2.4 683 18 2.6 +0.2 FSO-4------------------------------- 803 31 3.9 773 36 4.7 +.8 FSO-5------------------------------- 590 68 11.5 613 71 11.6 +.1 Subtotal middle level____________ 2,048 115 5.6 2,069 125 6.0 +.4 FSO-6------------------------------- 397 24 6.0 486 18 3.7 -2.3 FSO-7------------------------------- FSO-8 318 61 2 .6 160 -------------------- -.6 ------------------------------- -------------------- 11 ------------------------------ Subtotaljunior level _____________ Total FSO______________________ 3,514 159 4.5 FOREIGN SERVICE RESERVE (FSR) FSR-1------------------------------- 60 1 1.7 49 2 4.1 +2.4 FSR-2------------------------------- 126 5 4.0 119 6 5.0 +1.0 Subtotal senior level_____________ 186 6 3.2 FSR-3------------------------------- 198 15 7.6 178 12 6.7 -.9 FSR-4------------------------------- 285 16 5.6 270 13 4.8 -.8 FSR-5------------------------------- 378 28 7.4 430 41 9.5 +2.1 FSR-6 _______________________________ 462 55 11.9 476 52 10.9 -1.0 FSR-7------------------------------- 534 71 13.3 592 81 13.7 +.4 FSR-8------------------------------- 183 19 10.4 130 14 10.8 +.4 Total FSR______________________ 2,226 210 9.4 2,244 221 9.8 +.4 ALL FOREIGN SERVICE (FSO/R/RU AND FSSO/FSS) CA -------------------- CM---------------------------------- 39 1 2.6 38 1 2.6 ---------- FSO/R/RU-1-------------------- 450 10 2.2 440 12 2.7 +.5 FSO/R/RU-2----------------- ___------ 543 15 2.8 543 16 2.9 +.1 FSO/R/RU-3/FSSO-1------------------- 1,018 38 3.7 1,059 40 3.8 +.1 FSO/R/RU-4/FSSO-2------------------- 1,310 64 4.9 1,336 74 5.5 +.6 FSO/R/RU-5/FSSO-3------------------- 1,248 115 9.2 1,397 139 9.9 +.7 FSO/R/RU-6/FSSO-4------------------- 1,287 118 9.2 1,390 121 8.7 -.5 FSO/R/RU-7/FSSO-5-------- _---------- 1,255 107 8.5 1,184 118 10.0 +1.5 FSO/R/RU-8/FSSO-6------------------- 775 54 7.0 749 59 7.9 +.9 FSSO-7 ------------------------------ 464 33 7.1 570 34 6.0 -1.1 FSS-8 ------------------------------- 506 33 6.5 310 26 8.4 +1.9 FSS-9 ------------------------------- 100 7 7.0 108 8 7.4 +.4 FSS-10________________________------ 41 1 2.4 37 2 5.4 +3.0 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 28 SUMMARY OF PROMOTION RATES FOR MALE/FEMALE AND MINORITIES COMPARED TO THE OVERALL RATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FSO PROMOTIONS 1976-78-COMPARISON BY SEX Percent of Percent of Percent of Number eligible Number eligible Number eligible 2 to 1: 1976----------------------------- 61 24.8 59 24.4 2 50.0 1977----------------------------- 50 21.2 49 21.1 1 25.0 1978 ((A))_________________________ 10 4.1 9 3.8 1 14.3 1978 (B)_____________ 20 9.3 19 9.0 1 20.0 3to2: 1976----------------------------- 70 14.3 66 14.2 4 16.7 1977----------------------------- 70 14.1 69 14.6 1 4.2 1978 A)). ------------ 21 4.0 21 4.3 ------------------------ 1978 (____________ 35 7.4 32 7.2 3 10.7 4to3: 1976_____________________________ 121 16.9 111 16.3 10 28.6 1977_____________________________ 143 119.5 131 18.9 12 29.7 1978 (A) ------------------------- 25 3.5 25 3.8 ------------------------ 1978(B) ------------------------- 90 11.5 85 11.6 5 9.4 5 to 4: 1976----------------------------- 138 '23.5 115 22.6 23 29.1 1977_____________________________ 105 19.0 98 20.5 7 9.3 1978 (A)_________________________ 13 2.5 11 2.5 2 2.5 1978 (B) ------------------------- 92 14.7 82 15.4 10 10.5 6 to 5: 1976----------------------------- 81 29.1 70 29.5 11 26.8 1977_____________________________ 77 ,22.2 70 24.4 7 11.7 1978 (A)------------------------- 42 12.0 34 12.1 8 11.3 1978 (B)_________________________ 92 25.1 78 27.0 14 17.9 Totals: 1976---------------------- 471 20.3 421 19.7 50 27.3 1977_______________________ 445 18.9 417 19.3 28 13.5 1978 (A)___________________ 111 4.7 100 4.7 11 4.7 1978 (B)___________________ 329 13.4 296 13.4 33 12.8 BY CONE PD: 1976----------------------------- 37 48.7 36 48.0 1 100.0 1977----------------------------- 20 37.0 20 100.0 ------------------------ 1978 (A)------------------------- 2 5.1 1 2.6 1 100.0 1978 (B)------------------------- 3 7.0 3 7.0 ------------------------ POL: 1976----------------------------- 117 13.6 112 13.5 5 15.6 1977----------------------------- 178 18.2 171 18.2 7 18.9 1978 (A)-------------------- ---- 44 4.8 41 4.7 3 8.1 1978 (B)------------------------- 102 13.1 116 13.0 6 15.4 E/C: 1976----------------------------- 146 23.0 138 22.8 8 27.6 1977_____________________________ 125 21.3 119 21.5 6 17.6 1978 (A)------------------------- 25 4.2 25 4.5 ------------------------ 1978 (B)------------------------- 77 12.1 65 11.0 12 26.1 ADM: 1976----------------------------- 100 24.6 76 21.9 24 40.7 1977----------------------------- 64 16.2 60 17.4 4 8.0 1978 (A)------------------------- 17 4.1 17 4.9 ------------------------ 1978 (B)------------------------- 76 17.8 69 19.2 7 10.3 CONS: 1976----------------------------- 69 21.2 57 21.6 12 19.4 1977----------------------------- 56 16.5 45 17.3 11 12.8 1978 (A)------------------------- 22 6.1 15 5.5 7 8.0 1978 (B)------------------------- 51 12.1 43 13.6 8 7.7 SPT: 1976----------------------------- 2 22.2 2 22.2 ------------------------ 1977----------------------------- 2 20.0 2 100.0 ------------------------ 1978 A) ------------ 1 11.1 1 11.1 ------------------------ 1978 B) ------I----------------------------------------------------- UNCON 0: 1978 (A) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1978 (B) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals: 1976----------------------- 471 20.3 421 19.7 50 27.3 1977----------------------- 445 18.9 417 19.3 28 13.5 1978 (A)___________________ 111 4.7 100 4.7 11 4.7 1978 (B)___________________ 329 13.4 296 13.4 33 12.8 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 29 SUMMARY OF PROMOTION RATES FOR MALE/FEMALE AND MINORITIES COMPARED TO THE OVERALL RATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FSO PROMOTIONS 1976-78-COMPARISON BY SEX-Continued 2 to 1: 1976____________________________ 48.5 48.4 52.8 4.4 4.4 5.3 1977____________________________ 49.4 49.2 56.0 4.2 4.2 2.0 1978 (A ----------- 46.9 47.3 43.0 3.1 4.1 2.0 1978 B ___________ 47.9 48.0 45.8 3.8 3.3 3 0 3 to 2: . 1976____________________________ 46.0 46.0 46.2 6.0 6.0 6.3 1977____________________________ 47.5 47.5 53.0 6.3 6.1 10.8 ~A --------------- 1978 (A) --------------- 49.2 49.2 ------------ 7.2 7.2 ------------ 1978 44.6 44.3 46.7 4.8 4.7 4 7 4 to 3: . 1976____________________________ 43.0 42.6 47.5 5.4 5.6 3.2 1977____________________________ 44.0 43.4 49.3 6.7 6.6 5.5 1978 ~A --------------- 43.1 43.1 ------------ 6.3 6.8 ------------ 1978(B)__________--------------- 42.0 41.6 41.4 5.6 5.2 3.8 5 to 4: 1976____________________________ 37.0 36.4 39.9 3.2 3.2 3.0 1977____________________________ 37.0 36.4 41.7 4.9 4.9 4.7 1978 ~A --------------- 40.0 42.1 37.0 6.3 6.3 5.5 1978(B)________________ 37.5 37.0 36.0 4.8 4.4 3.6 6to5- 1974 ---------------------------- 32.5 32.4 33.2 2.0 2.0 1.8 1977____________________________ 32.5 33.3 32.0 2.9 2.9 1.9 1978(A)_________________________ 32.5 31.3 33.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 1978 B _________________________ 32.9 32.7 34.1 3.0 2.8 3.1 Totals: 1976_ _____________________ 40.7 40.7 41.0 3.8 4.2 3. 1 1977______________________ 41.7 41.7 42.3 5.3 5.3 4.8 1978 (A)___________________ 39.0 39.9 31.3 4.7 4.9 2.8 1978 B ___________________ 38.4 38.7 35.9 4.1 4.1 3.4 BY CONE PD: 1976_____________________________ 48.5 48.4 50.1 5.3 5.3 4.8 1977----------------------------- 49.8 49.8 ------------ 6.2 6.2 ------------ 1978 (A )_________________________ 41.0 39.0 43.0 2.0 2 0 2 0 1978 (B)------------------------- POL: 44.8 44.8 ------------ 2.6 . . 2.6 ------------ 1 976 ----------------------------- 41.2 41.4 35.5 5.2 5.3 4.1 1977_____________________________ 41.9 41.9 41.9 6.0 6.0 6.7 1978 (A -------------- 41.1 41.1 40.7 5.2 5.3 4.0 1978 (B)------------------------- 38.4 38.4 35.7 4.4 4.5 3.2 E/C: 1976_____________________________ 38.7 38.8 36.3 4.2 4.2 3.5 1977_____________________________ 40.7 40.5 44.0 5.2 .5.2 4.7 1978 ((A)) -------------- 40.5 40.5 ------------ 5.4 5.4 ------------ 1978(______________ ADM: 37.8 38.1 36.1 4.1 4.3 3.1 1976_____________________________ 41.6 40.7 44.5 3.0 3.0 2.8 1977_____________________________ 41.9 41.9 41.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 1978 (A) -------------- 41.7 41.7 ------------ 4.8 4.8 ------------ 1978 (______________ CONS : 40.3 40.1 42.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 1976_____________________________ 38.5 38.4 38.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1977_____________________________ 40.4 40.1 41.9 4.4 4.5 3.8 1978 (A) _________________________ 37.0 39.3 31.7 3.4 3.7 2.7 1978 (B)------------------------- SPT: 47.1 37.3 35.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 1976----------------------------- 49.2 49.2 ------------ 7.3 7.3 ------------ 1977----------------------------- 39.0 39.0 ------------ 2.5 2.5 ------------ 1978 (A -------------- 1978 8 -------------- UNCONED: 1978 (A) ------------------------- 1978 (B) ------------------------- Totals: 1976----------------------- 40.7 40.7 41.0 3.8 4.2 3.1 1977----------------------- 41.7 41.7 42.3 5.3 5.3 4.8 1978 A)------------------- 39.0 39.9 31.3 4.7 4.9 2.8 1978 B)------------------- 38.4 38.7 35.9 4.1 4.1 3.4 I Does not include service at equivalent grade of previous pay plan for FSO's by lateral entry. Source: Per/mgt. and per/PE. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 30 Number Percent of eligible Number Percent of eligible Number Percent of eligible 2 to 1: BY CLASS 1977----------------------------- 50 21.2 48 21.1 2 22.2 1978 (A)------------------------- 10 4.1 9 3.8 1 14.3 1978 (B)------------------------- 20 9.3 20 9116 ------------------------ 3 to 2: 1977 ---------------------------- 70 14.1 68 14.0 2 15.4 - 1978 (A)------------------------- 21 4.0 21 4.1 ------------------------ 1978 (B) ------------------------- 35 7.4 35 7.6 ------------------------ 4 to 3: 1977----------------------------- 143 19.5 141 1978 (A) ------------------------- 25 3.5 24 1978 (B)------------------------- 90 11.5 89 5 to 4: 1977----------------------------- 105 19.0 99 20.1 6 10.2 1978 (A) ----------------------- 13 2.5 12 2.6 1 1.6 1978 -- (B)------------------------- 92 14.7 86 15.4 6 8.8 6to5? 1977_____________________________ 77 22.2 73 22.3 4 21.1 1978 (A)_________________________ 42 12.0 41 12.5 1 4.2 1978 (B)_________________________ 92 25.1 85 24.9 7 28.0 Totals: 1977----------------------- 445 18.8 429 19.1 16 13.0 1978 (A) ------------------- 111 4.7 107 4.8 4 3.0 1978 (B) ------------------- 329 13.4 315 13.6 14 9.7 BY CONE PD: 1977_____________________________ 20 37.0 19 36.5 1 50.0 1978 (A) ------------------------- 2 5.1 2 5.4 ------------------------ 1978 (B) ------------------------- 3 7.0 3 7.3 ------------------------ POL: 1977_____________________________ 178 18.2 173 18.4 5 14.3 1978 (A)_________________________ 44 ( ) 4.8 43 4.9 1 2.9 _________________________ 122 1971 B F C 13.1 116 13.0 6 17.6 / : 1977_____________________________ 125 21.3 121 21.4 4 18.2 1978 (A) ----------- 25 4.0 25 4.3 ------------------------ 1978 B ___________ 77 12.1 75 12.3 2 7.7 ADM: 1977_____________________________ 64 16.2 62 16.9 2 7.1 1978 ___________ 17 4.1 16 4.2 1 3.1 1978 ___________ 76 17.8 72 18.4 4 10.8 CONS: 1977_____________________________ 56 16.3 52 16.9 4 11.1 1978 (A)_________________________ 22 6.1 20 6.3 2 4.9 1978 (B)_________________________ 51 12.1 49 13.1 2 4.4 SPT: 1977---------------------------- 2 20.0 2 20.0 ------------------------ 1978 (A)------------------------- 1 11.1 1 11.1 ------------------------ 1978 (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals: 1977_______________________ 445 18.8 429 19.1 16 13.0 1978 (A)___________________ 111 4.7 107 4.8 4 3.0 1978 B ___________________ 329 13.4 315 13.6 14 9.7 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Total Non- minorities Minorities Total Non- minorities Minorities BY CLASS 2 to 1: 1977----------------------------- 49.4 49.5 49.5 4.2 4.3 2.5 1978 (A)------------------------ 46.9 47.0 46.0 3.1 3.9 4.0 1978 (B) ------------------------- 47.9 47.9 ------------ 3.8 3.8 ----------- 3 to 2: 1977----------------------------- 47.5 47.9 46.5 f.3 6.3 5.0 1978 (A) 49.2 49.2 ------------ 7.2 7.2 ------------ 1978 B 44.6 44.6 ------------ 4.8 4.8 ---------- -- 4to3: 1977----------------------------- 44.0 44.0 42.5 6.7 6.6 8 0 1978 ((A)) 43.1 42.6 56.0 6.3 6.3 . 6.0 1978 (B)---------- 42.0 41.9 36.0 5.6 5.1 2.0 5 to 4: 1977----------------------------- 37.0 37.0 37.2 4.9 5.0 4.3 1918 . (A) 40.0 41.1 44 0 6 3 6 2 6 0 1978 B 37.5 37.1 . 36.0 . 4.8 . 4.4 . 4 0 6 to 5: . 1977----------------------------- 32.5 33.1 35.3 2.9 2.7 4.6 1978 (A)------------------------- 32.5 32.6 29.0 2.6 2.6 2.0 1978(B) ------------------------- 32.9 32.9 33.6 3.0 2.9 1.9 Totals: 1977----------------------- 41.7 41.7 39.9 5;3 5.3 4.6 1978 (A) ------------------- 39.0 38.9 43.6 43, 4.7 4.5 1978 (B) -------------------- 38.7 38.4 34.8 4.1 4.1 2.8 BY CONE PD: 1977----------------------------- 49.8 50.0 46.0 6.2 6.3 3.0 1978(A)------------------------- 41.0 41.0 ------------ 2.0 2.0 ------------ 1978 B)------------------------- POL: 44.8 44.8 ------------ 2.6 2.6 ------------ 1977----------------------------- 41.9 41.8 45.4 6.0 6.0 6.0 1978 (A). ------------- 41.1 41.0 46.0 5.2 5.2 4.0 1978 (B) ------------- F/C: 38.6 38.6 32.3 4.4 4.5 2.7 1977----------------------------- 40.7 40.8 36.2 5.2 5.1 4.5 1978 (A)------------------------- 40.5 40.5 ------------ 5.4 5.4 1978 (B)------------------------- ADM: 38.1 38.2 34.5 4.1 4.2 ----.------- 5 j.-- 1977----------------------------- 41.9 41.9 40.5 4.0 4.0 4 5 1978 (SA) ~ 41.7 42.5 29.0 4.8 4:9 . 2.0 1978 `B CONS: 40.1 40.7 37.2 3.7 3.8 2.4 1977----------------------------- 40.4 40.9 35.0 4.4 4.5 3.0 1978 A) 37.0 35.6 50.0 3.4 3.2 6 0 1978 B) SPT: 37.3 37.5 37.5 4.0 4.0 . 3.5 1977----------------------------- 39.0 39.0 ------------ 2.5 2.5 ------------ 1978 (A) ------------------------- 58.0 58.0 ------------ 9.0 9.0 ------------ Totals: 1977----------------------- 41.7 41.7 39.9 5.3 5.3 4.6 1978 (A)------------------- 39.0 38.9 43.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 1978 B ------------------- 38.7 38.4 34.8 4.1 4.1 2.8 I Does not include service at equivalent grade of previous pay plan for FS0's by lateral entry. Source: Per/mgL and per/pe. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 32 Mrs. SCHROEDER. What is the justification for preserving early re- tirement rights for Foreign Service personnel who are being con- verted to civil service only when they are not going to have the hardships of this worldwide service? Why did you draw the distinc- tion in this bill ? Mr. READ. They have the option, Mrs. Schroeder, to retain their Foreign Service retirement benefits in all of its features or to convert to the civil service retirement system which does not contain that feature. They have the option. Mrs. SCHROEDER. That could cause us a little problem with the Civil Service as you well know. Mr. READ. Yes; but OPM has approved the bill and this provision. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What do you think about allowing the grievance system to be a negotiable item. rather than mandated through the legislation ? Mr. READ. It has been legislated for how many years now, Jim? Five years. We have found it highly satisfactory and we are making some improvements in that chapter 11. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But "we" are management. What about the employees? Mr. READ. You will, of course, be hearing from the representatives of AFSA but we have been in very close consultation with them on the provisions of change which are incorporated in chapter 11. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have since found out that the Foreign Service retirement fund has an unfunded liability and part of this process requires that we clarify how much of it is unfunded and how much it would take to fund it fully. Is that in the bill? Am I correct in under- standing that? Mr. READ. Let me ask Jim Michel to help us on that if you would. STATEMENT OF JAMES H. MICHEL, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. MICHEL. The Foreign Service retirement and disability fund was established in 1924. It is financed by employee contributions and by employer contributions. In addition, legislation enacted some years ago provides for periodic incremental appropriations to maintain the normal cost of the fund and to provide for situations where new bene- fits are added or other changes result in cost increases. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Has that happened ? Mr. MICHEL. There have been changes such as the addition of new employees. Some AID employees were brought into the system a few years ago and there was a supplemental appropriation to cover in- creased costs to the fund because there were these additional em- ployees for whom there had not been employer contributions over the years prior to their entering into the retirement system. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But are you short right now? Mr. MICHEL. I don't know the present status of the fund. We would have to provide that. [The document referred to follows:] The unfunded liability of the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund is currently $2 billion. This compares with the $124 billion unfunded liability of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 To further elaborate on retirement system costs and financing, the following is supplied : Question. How much does the Foreign Service Retirement System cost? Answer. Costs of retirement systems are usually expressed in two parts : normal cost and unfunded liability. In general terms, normal cost is the cost of benefits currently being earned and unfunded liability is the sum of obliga- tions previously incurred for prior service and for new laws that have not been financed. The normal cost of the Foreign Service Retirement System is currently 21.8 percent of the participant payroll or $72.6 million. If this amount were deposited in the Fund annually, at interest, it would be sufficient to pay for benefits to be earned from this point forward at current benefit and payroll levels. The current unfunded liability of the System is $2 billion. This debt has arisen from several factors. One Is that in the middle 1950's the Government made no contributions to the Retirement Fund, and not until 1977 did current em- ployee and Government contributions cover the full Foreign Service normal cost. Another reason for the growth of the unfunded liability was that its very existence meant that the System was losing interest each year on funds that were supposed to be on deposit in the Fund. This loss, compounded over time, has been significant. This situation has now been corrected as indicated in the next answer. The above cost figures are based on estimates made by the Actuary in the Treasury Department. The Treasury makes a formal actuarial evaluation of the Foreign Service Retirement System every five years. The next one is sched- uled to be printed In July 1979. The Actuary updates estimates of the normal cost and the unfunded liability of the System every year or oftener as required. Question. How Is the System financed? Answer. Money to pay benefits as they fall due is obtained from the following sources : (1) Money In the Fund not needed to pay current benefits is invested in Government securities which earn interest which Is credited to the Fund. Cur- rently, new investments of monies in the Fund are earning better than 9 per- cent annually. (2) An amount equivalent to interest on the unfunded liability is paid into the Fund annually by the Treasury Department-$104 million for fiscal year 1980.' (3) The cost of benefits attributable to military service is paid into the Fund annually by the Treasury Department-$8.8 million for fiscal year 1980.' (4) Unfunded liability created by pay raises, benefit changes and expansion of coverage to new groups of employees is amortized in full over 30 years. Appro- priations for this purpose are made annually to the Fund-$45.2 million for fiscal year 1980.' (5) The normal cost of the Foreign Service Retirement System is met by the contribution of 7 percent from the salary of every participant plus a matching amount from the employing agency (State, USICA and AID), with the balance, 7.8 percent of payroll, being met by direct appropriations to the Fund. This appro- priation is made pursuant to section 865(b) of the Foreign Service Act added in 1976 by Public Law 94-350. Question. How does the Foreign Service normal cost and unfunded liability compare with the comparable Civil Service costs? Answer. The Civil Service normal cost is approximately 14 percent and the Foreign Service normal cost is 21.8 percent of covered payroll. The Civil Service unfunded liability is $124 billion which compares with a figure of $2 billion for the Foreign Service. (Civil Service costs are based upon static economic assump- tions while Foreign Service costs are based upon projections which assume contin- ued inflation.) Question. Why Is the Foreign Service normal cost higher than the Civil Service normal cost? Answer. Apart from the different economic assumptions used in making the computations, the higher Foreign Service normal cost is attributable to the fol. lowing differences between the Systems : 1 These financing arrangements (items 2, 3, and 4) are identical to those In force under the Civil Service Retirement System and were Initiated in 1971 pursuant to Public Law 91-201. Payments under items 2 and 3 above are beine phased In: 10 percent of the amounts due were paid in 1971 with Increasing amounts paid In each year thereafter with the full amount becoming payable In 1980 and in each fecal year thereafter. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 The Foreign Service is a career service and many of those entering intend to remain in the Service throughout their careers. This is not true of many persons who enter the Civil Service. The result is that approximately six times as many persons who enter the Foreign Service at age 25 earn a retirement benefit as do persons entering the Civil Service Retirement System at age 25. When individuals withdraw from the retirement system without earning a retire- ment benefit, they receive a refund of their own contributions with a minimum amount of interest. The Government contributions made on their behalf remain on deposit in the retirement fund for the benefit of those who remain in the Sys- tem. Government contributions to the Civil Service System benefit a much smaller proportion of the work force, and therefore, the average amount per employee that must be deposited is less. 2. SALARY PROGRESSION The Foreign Service salary progression ratio (entrance to highest salary for a typical career) is over twice that for the Civil Service. Therefore, the employee contributions made at the same rate in the two Systems represent a smaller pro- portion of benefits received in the Foreign Service System. However, many in the Civil Service, such as management interns and similar appointees have a career advancement pattern similar to that in the Foreign Service. Such personnel in the Civil Service have their retirement costs averaged with many others with low career advancement rates, and thus the average cost, or normal cost, of the large heterogeneous Civil Service Retirement System is lower than the compa- rable Foreign Service cost. 3. EARLY RETIREMENT AND 2 PERCENT MULTIPLIER The average retirement age for participants in the Foreign Service Retirement System is about two years younger than in the Civil Service System. This is attributable to the Foreign Service selection out system, to the early voluntary retirement age and to the mandatory retirement age of 60. In addition, Foreign Service retirees live, on the average, one year longer than Civil Service retirees. The result is that the average Foreign Service retiree receives an annuity three years longer than the average Civil Service retiree and this contributes to a higher average retirement system cost. Also the Foreign Service annuity equals a straight 2 percent times average salary which is slightly higher than provided by the general Civil Service annuity computation formula, although it is identical to the formula used under the CIA retirement system and is less generous than the formula used for the FBI and other law enforcement personnel, fire fighters, and Secret Service personnel. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What would happen to the people who will transfer to the civil service? Mr. MICHEL. The employee contributions would be transferred. Employer contributions under present law remain in the retirement fund. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So we could end up with a shortfall in the employer contribution for the transfer? Mr. MICHEL. I don't think we are talking about substantial sums either way. 11 Mrs. SCHROEDER. We might if we were talking about the early retire- ment provision going with them. Mr. MICHEL. Persons who remain in the Foreign Service retirement and disability system continue to contribute to the Foreign Service fund and their annuity is paid from that fund. In other words, they are in that system now while they are in the Foreign Service, they simply would not transfer. Mrs. SCHROEDER. If they are converted into the civil service, you will keep them in the Foreign Service retirement system? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. In the Foreign Service retirement and disability system. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So there won't be a transfer? Mr. MICHEL. No. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have a lot more questions, but why not let some- body else have a crack at it. Mr. FASCELL. At this point in the record let me inquire how the actuarial determination of the fund is made. Mr. READ. It is governed by the annual appropriation process, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. I understand that but how is the actuarial determina- tion made if it is made? Mr. READ. We have Bob Hull here who has that information. Mr. FASCELL. I mean do you have outside actuaries or do you do it internally or at all? Mr. HuLL.1 The actuary from the Treasury Department evaluates our system. Mr. FASCELL. How often? Mr. HULL. Under the law, it is required to be done every 5 years. Mr. FASCELL. When was the last one? Mr. HULL. Five years ago. The new one is due, I understand, any day now. Mr. FASCELL. The new one is due any day. Would you furnish the committee with a copy of that, please, when it comes in. Mr. HULL. I hope he was correct when he told me that the other day. Mr. FASCELL. Well, whenever it comes in. Mr. Secretary ? Mr. READ. Indeed we will.2 Mr. FASCELL. All right. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. No questions. Mr. FASCELL. I want to say we are delighted that we have experts here for various facets of this bill-Mr. Leach, of course, and then Mrs. Schroeder who is an expert on management and labor relations and I am one of those generals who knows less and less about more and more. Mr. Pritchard. Mr. PRITCHARD. I want to ask this question. The selection out process certainly seems to be an effective way of maintaining the high caliber of the oreign Service by releasing those employees whose perform- ance has been substandard. Has this provision in your perception been followed in a healthy competitive spirit? Mr. READ. It has, Mr. Pritchard, but it has gone through rather drastic change when you look back over the history of the last 10 years. When I left the Department in early 1969, there were probably 150 persons who were selected out under this provision of the law for substandard performance yearly. It fell to zero in 1974-75 in part because of successful legal challenges. 1 Robert Hull, Jr., Bureau of Personnel, Department of State. 'The material referred to was subsequently submitted and is retained- in committee files. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. PRITCHARD. I understand that. Is there any question in your mind that you can point to the record and say this has had a very healthy effect on the State Department? Mr. READ. There is no doubt whatsoever. Mr. PRITCHARD. Maybe we should extend that to congressional areas. Mr. Chairman, those are all the questions I have. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I will be happy to follow my minority leader over there. Mr. LEACH. In reading some of the summary material, Mr. Secre- tary, one thing really struck me as odd-if not bizarre-in connection with this concept of an SFS officer in the Senior Foreign Service. The people who were 'attempting to design 'a new program were probably saying to themselves, let's have something that looks comparable to what the Civil Service has done with the SE'S. And yet there is this oddity that if a Foreign Service officer wants to be considered for the SFS, he has. to indicate he wants to be con- sidered. Then he has only 5 years to be promoted, in which case that FS-1 officer will say to himself, "I have been an FS-1 for only 1 or 2 years, therefore I won't ask to be considered." He has to make such a judgment when, in actuality, he would like to be considered. Now there might be an argument because of the vulnerability of going into the SFS, that an FS-1 might not want to be considered at all times, but I think most people like to be promoted. You are putting aburden on that FS-1 that is strange and I don't know of an analogy in the private sector or in the Government sector. Why, in heaven's name, once a guy has been named an FS-1, won't he be immediately eligible to be promoted? You are putting an odd burden on him. Will you explain your reasoning behind doing that? Mr. READ. I would like to do so. You will be able to judge for your- selves that this senior threshold provision in its present posture is one of the provisions which commands the widest and deepest sup- port in the bill. We have had for some years, Mr. Leach, a senior threshold on paper. It was meant to be rigorous. It was meant to be different from other selection boards. It was meant to separate, to use the military analogy, the colonels from the star rank, the senior members of the Service. It did not do so. It has worked as every other selection board in the Service. The tombstone promotion, so called, of people who 'have come to the end of time in class and yet no one wants to say their aspirations are beyond their reach have been, unhappily, a phenomenon that we have had to live with. What we are doing by this so-called window, which is borrowed directly from the passover techniques in the mili- tary service, is to say when you become an FS-1 you will have a time in class that will be set by the Secretary, which will be, say, 10 years. When you think that you are ready for promotion you so indicate and then you have 5 years of eligibility. This will be of considerable significance to the selection boards, it will tell the selection boards something about that person as to when he or she thinks that the member is ready for promotion. Mind you, these are members of the Service who have been in for years and have a very full record. They can set the 5-year eligibility clock running in the first year when they get to FS-1 or in the last year in class or in a middle year, but they can't extend their time in class by doing so. . Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. LEACH. Mr. Secretary, I can accept the concept of the threshold and the analogy to the military. But I am wondering as to the need to burden the individual with saying "I am not ready yet," "now I am ready," and then giving him only five opportunities after that. Why would not all FS-1's be eligible to be promoted to the SFS at any time? Mr. READ. They can be if they think they are waterwalkers, to use the jargon of the Service. They can opt to be. Mr. LEACH. Isn't it presumptuous of someone to ask for immediate consideration? Mr. READ. It might or might not be depending on his or her com- petency and performance level. We don't want to compete them before they are ready to compete. Most members of the Service wouldn't declare their eligibility in year one or until they established a track record at the new grade, but they would be able to do so if they wished. Mr. LEACH. Could l ask one other question? Mr. READ. I have been in and out of this system. I have been in many other occupations. I find that there is really something rather cruel about the inability of the Service at present to tell a member that he or he should start looking for a second career in a timely fashion. That sounds harsh in a way and yet other systems do it. If you tell someone that when they are 53, 54, it is not as humane as if it were done at an earlier point. Harry. Mr. BARNES. If I can add just one comment. What seems to me most important here is in our stress giving more responsibility. What to me is the most attractive feature is that it does place a significant amount of responsibility on the individual to make some decisions where the individual is well qualified to make them. Mr. LEACH. Let me just ask one other question on a somewhat dif- ferent subject. Most of this bill deals with the Foreign Service, briefly touching on ambassadorial level. There have been many of us from time to time who are concerned with the manner in which ambassa- dorial appointments are made and there is something in here that addresses that. Can you tell me right now what percentage of ambas- sadors are noncareer? Mr. READ. Yes. 25 percent. Mr. LEACH. That is pretty much historical? Mr. READ. No; it is not historically. This is a figure agreed on by President Carter and Secretary Vance and they have kept to it very religiously. At the end of the last administration the figure was, I believe, 33 or 34 percent. Mr. LEACH. Do you think an arbitrary percentage ought to be legislated rather than Mr. READ. No. I think it becomes too inflexible if it were in law, and I think it would be an intrusion on the President's constitutional pre- rogatives to try to legislate that. Mr. LEACH. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Gray. Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pick up on some of the questions that my colleague. Mrs. Schroeder, was emphasizing. I would think that the Foreign Service personnel reform legislation would provide an excellent op- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 38 portunity to incorporate some strong commitment of EEO but after I view the legislation I don't see any real strong specific language which illustrates that concern. Is there something that maybe I missed? Mr. READ. Yes; Mr. Gray. We have put it as the second objective of the bill in section 101 (b) (2). The Service and the Department are covered, I might add, :by the equal opportunity provisions in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 so we do not need new machinery, but we have given recognition in a prominent fashion to a goal which has been a goal of this administration but is now stated in the statute. Mr. GRAY. What would be the specific steps that the Department will take to improve the number of women and minorities within the services. Mr. READ. Secretary Vance alluded to those earlier. Mr. GRAY. I am sorry I was late. Mr. READ. We have essentially two affirmative action programs, one at the junior level for minorities, and one at mid levels for minorities and women and their goals are the result of an executive level task force which Secretary Vance set up in 1977. As he said earlier, we have met those goals in the junior ranks in the first two years of operation here. We have not done well in the .mid level areas but we are making strenuous efforts to do so. Mr. GRAY. What do you call that program? Does it have a name? Mr. READ. They are called the mid level and junior level affirmative action programs, and I would be glad to send literature and statistics. Mr. GRAY. Is there a junior level? Mr. READ. Yes. We have been very mindful of these programs, and I think statistics will bear that out. While no one is ever satisfied with statistics per se as the sole valid indicator, I think there have been rather substantial gains in the last 2 or 3 years. Mr. GRAY. Can you tell me how many Foreign Service officers there are in the Foreign Service? Mr. READ. Yes. 3,600. Minorities constitute only 5 percent. It is very low. Ten years ago it was 1 percent so we are starting from a very, very low rate of performance. In terms of women, for instance, 10 or 15 years ago it was 5 percent. It is now 10 percent but again those statistics are misleading because in the upper levels the repre- sentative nature of the Service is not nearly what it is at the more junior levels. Mr. GRAY. How many minorities do you have at the Deputy or Assistant Secretary level at the Department? Mr. READ. I would have to supply that for the record. Mr. GRAY. I would appreciate it if you would.' I think you mentioned a written exam when talking to Mrs. Schroeder or a test that is taken. Can you give me an indication of how women and minorities make out on that test? Mr. READ. I will ask Director General Barnes to comment on that in a moment but I am pleased to say that our recruitment efforts have been heavily oriented toward women and minorities in the last couple of years in terms of the visits to college campuses, university campuses, and the percentage of applications in both women and minority ranks has improved satisfactorily. Harry can probably provide more details. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 39 Mr. BARNES. As far as minorities are -concerned, our data are lim- ited simply because it was only starting last year that we were allowed by the Civil Service Commission to collect data on minorities as such. But to try to give you some sense in that field, the number of black individuals taking the Foreign Service exam, which is given annually in December, a year ago last December ran around 550. This last De- cember the number taking the exam ran around 600. This was at a period when the overall level of people taking the exam, all categories, declined by about 10 percent and this reflects the recruitment efforts which Mr. Reed was referring to just now. We have had an increase in the number of people passing the exam as well. I mentioned earlier the oral exam. We have adopted new pro- cedures.this year to extend the oral exam from a type of exam which lasts 11/2 hours or so to a full-d-ay exam. That has been in effect only for a couple of months, we don't know yet what the results are going to be there. We want to see, of course, particularly how that has an effect, if it does have an effect, in terms of women and minorities. What I can provide for you over a longer period of time would be data as far as women in the Foreign Service Officer Corps is con- cerned; that is, the recruitment. Figures on minorities would have to be limited to just these last 2 years because that is all we have the data for. Mr. GRAY. I would be interested in knowing what the purpose of the oral exam is as well as the rest of the written exams because often exams can be weighted in such a way as to exclude people and how the judgment is made in evaluation is made of the oral exam and also that becomes very subjective. I have some documents on the exam review and it shows that the oral exam was weighted 23 in 1976 but in 1977 it was weighted 36. Gen- eral background in English is weighted 7 in 1976 but suddenly in 1977 it is weighted 24. It seems to me that those kinds of questions are ex- tremely relevant to terms of minority and recruitment. I also have looked at some of the sample questions on functional background and thank God I don't want to go into the Foreign Serv- ice because I don't know if I could pass this exam despite the fact that I have a bachelor degree, two masters degrees, and two-thirds of a Ph. D. One question concerned two films, "Z" and "State of Seige," where one needs to know that Costa Gauras has emerged as a contem- porary director who has best mastered the technique of political situa- tions in the tension-filled feature films and that he has moved the political film to one with appeal to a mass audience. What is the rele- vance of that to serving in the Foreign Service? It seems to me if you are a great movie buff you would perhaps know the answer to that if you spent a lot of time going to movies. Mr. BARNES. Let me start with your more general question. As I indicated earlier, what we attempted to do with the written ex- amination is to get at a sense of a person's familiarity with a number of factors which we think apply to all fields in the Foreign Service, and I mentioned just as an example American culture, American history. I suspect the questions you quoted are ones related to ICA's work in the cultural and informational field. We are trying to see what the level of person's knowledge and familiarity is in that particular area which would help us in the assignment process once someone comes into the Foreign Service in terms of directing them toward one field or another. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 40 On the oral examination, if you like, I would be glad to provide more information and detail. Mr. GRAY. I really would like to see a very clear detail because I don't see the real advantages of a question like that. I don't see any questions down here about chitlings and Mother's Day which would be extremely relevant, I think, to a functional background, and that is what comes under functional background. Now. because somebody does not ! know the director who has made this tremendous movie in the art field in terms of "Z" and "State of Siege," does that mean that they are somehow functionally deficient or does it just perhaps mean that they have not had a great opportunity in their life to spend a lot of time seeing films? I don't think that there is a correlation there and I have seen too much of this kind of stuff utilized to exclude people from getting into posi- tions. I think that as I look at some of the other questions, if each of the foreign groups of artists could collaborate on a work-which group would probably create an American folk opera based on themselves from the early history of the Nation and then there is a collection of one, two, three, four, five categories with about four people per cate- gory. You know, what relevance does that have to being functional? When you look at the fact that in 1976 that kind of background was given a 7 weight and in 1977 it was given a 24 weight, I wonder what it is given in 1979. It seems to me that I would very much like to see the specifics and understand the criteria of these kinds of tests because it looks to me very much like they can be utilized to exclude some of the various kinds of categories of people who are not represented in our Foreign Service who just don't have that opportunity. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRAY. Yes; I will yield to my colleague. Mrs. SCHROEDER. From my experience looking at selection devices in the private sector, we used to throw them out right and left, this thing is a disaster. I used to have great joy in making up a test that was given to United Airlines executives. Do you know what a gusset is? I bet you don't. I bet the women do, but so what. I do find this offensive and join the gentlemen in saying that may be part of your problem. It is nice to have language in the bill but I think we have got to go to the guts of the problem. Mr. GRAY. Thank you. I certainly agree with my colleague particu- larly when I look at the fact that some statistics here show that only 3 percent of blacks passed the examination, 8 percent Asian, 10 percent American Indian. When we look at those kinds of questions, you know, I really want to know what the real advantages of those questions are in terms of whether a person can function in the Foreign Service, whether they can represent this Nation abroad in various areas. So I would like very much to know very specifically what this For- eign Service personnel reform legislation is going to do in terms of a commitment to EEO and also to know exactly how these tests are con- ducted, what the judgments are and the evaluations because otherwise I see it right now as being exclusionary. Mr. READ. Mr. Gray, let me say I would very much welcome that close scrutiny that both of you have just offered. We want to improve these tests, get out irrelevant questions and get out the factors that Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 have absolutely no basis of validity. We have very much in mind that the Foreign Service should be, as this act says, representative of the American people. But examination questions relate to implementation. On a statutory matter, the references to merit principles appear throughout the bill; the principles that were passed by the Congress last year, including the EEO provisions, which apply in full to the Foreign Service. Mr. GRAY. I am not questioning whether there is an EEO umbrella. I am sure there is. What I am questioning is how are we carrying it out specifically, and are we enforcing it and general language that simply says that we are committed to equal opportunity, we are committed to affirmative action, we are committed to having a broad base repre- sentation but not having the specifics there. That troubles me. Three or four years ago as a member of an organization we met with the then Director of the FBI who talked about the fact that minorities in the FBI were relegated to clerical status for the most part and the Assistant Director at the meetings said, "Well, you know we have a test, we have these forms." We said could we look at the tests. On that application form as well as the test, let me give you one example. The application form which was about five pages long had one ques- tion which said, "Has anyone in your family, going back to grand- parents, ever been arrested ?" All right. Now I don't know if you know anything about black folk, but just about every black person, if you go back to the grandparent, particularly as to the days of discrimination and segregation in the South, at one time or another probably got ar- rested. So you automatically knocked out 50 percent of those qualifying even though the grandson may have a law degree from Yale, can pass all the cultural and functional, but because the grandparent was ar- rested during a period of our history, he could not qualify as an agent for the FBI and no one thought of that. So I am simply saying to you I know there is an overarching um- brella of commitment. Mr. Chairman, I want to see the specifics if we are talking about reform legislation. Mr. READ. We would welcome that. Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Pritchard. Mr. PRITCHARD. My understanding is you people -did not structure the test yourself. Do you have some outside people that do the work on this? Mr. READ. We have used as a contractor the Educational Testing Service. The results are looked at and scrutinized by many sectors of the Department, employees and management, and the improvement process has been an earnest one and a steady one. But I have no doubt that procedures can be improved and we want to do so. Mr. PRITCHARD. It was my understanding with the weighting you have been doing in the last 2 years it has been one in which you hoped to increase the numbers of minorities and women because if you had no people take the tests, they say the tests are being changed so that it is tougher if you are a white male. Mr. READ. Those allegations have been made. Every effort is being made to create equal opportunity in the truest sense. It is a difficult Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 42 search and one that we need to pursue, and we need help and advice, and we would welcome it. That is all I can say at this point. Mr. BARNES. I have one other point. One of the reasons we have gone to an expanded oral examination is to minimize the possibilities of the sort of problems you are talking about going from 11/2 hours to a whole day involving the candidates much more actively in the procedure. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Are you covered by the uniform guidelines of em- ployment selection practices? Mr. BARNES. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Do you think these exams meet those uniform guidelines? Mr. BARNES. I think they do, but we will have EEOC's comments. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Have you got any comments from EEOC? Mr. BARNES. EEOC is now in the process of taking a look at some of the things we are doing. Mrs. SCHROEDER. They have not validated them at this point? Mr. BARNES. They have evaluated our affirmative action program. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Most of it has been in-house as I understand. When do you think that validation is going to be ready? Mr. BARNES. I had a discussion about 3 weeks ago with Commis-. sioner Rodriguez. I am waiting to hear from him again. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We will be watching that, too, I am sure. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Secretary, you are, saying you will provide for us the evaluation, exactly how your examinations are structured? Mr. READ. With pleasure. Mr. GRAY. Were the questions asked in the oral examination, why they are asked, what background they are trying to portray because I certainly don't want to injure or prevent any American, no matter what their color or sex, from having an opportunity to pass into the Foreign Service. We need all the qualified people. I am concerned about white males, too, have quite a few of them that live in my dis- trict, and I know they would want their Congressman to be con- cerned about them but at the same time we are talking about positive action to help minorities. Certainly my colleague Mrs. Schroeder has pointed to one term that I certainly would not know but I think that we can look at these examinations very, very carefully. and make sure that they are in balance, that they. are used properly, not done in such a way to exclude people. Particularly we are talking, about minorities and other groups in our society who have not historically had the opportunity to partici- pate in the broader culture of much Of America. You know, it was not until about 20 or 30 years ago that some of us could go to the opera, you know, and so if you begin to start asking those kinds of questions to make a judgment about whether one is suited or has the ability to do a job, I think it is very questionable. Like I said, if we are going to make these exams equitable, let's put hopping johns down there, chitlings and Mother's Day. What does that mean? I am sure there are white males who know what hop- ping johns are. Mr. FASCELL. Well, I think that obviously it is a very important point for both committees. Therefore, what we must do in the course Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 43 of the consideration of this bill is to get commitments from the various elements of the administration to deal with this problem and then make certain that the Congress exercises oversight to make sure that the legislated policies are carried out. Therefore, I think that we need to be as specific as possible with respect to the present thoughts and motivations of this administration on the implementation of the var- ious personnel policies that are being sought. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Secretary. There has been considera- ble concern over a long period of time and a great many studies, one of them the Linehan study, dealing with the various cones in the De- partment, morale problems, and whether or not this legislation should deal with the process of upward and lateral mobility in the cones of the Department. Mr. READ. Those cones, for better or worse, were put into effect by administrative action and can be altered by administrative action. They have worked, as you know, Mr. Chairman, to advance certain of the key elements of the Department that had been rated somewhat less than generously before. But their worth is a matter of considerable controversy as well as some related facets, particularly the zone ar- rangements within the cones. These are matters which can be dealt with administratively. I would hope that one of the things that structural reform would clear the path for would be a career development program worthy of its name which would, with more clarity, facilitate lateral movement within these internal divisions and I would hope that in due course by the time one got to the senior threshold you would have served in either the political or economic cones as well as the administrative or consular cones, because each needs greater appreciation of the other's problems and they are all essential parts of the Service's ef- forts. That will be our highest priority following structural reform. Mr. FASCELL I recognize, op course, we cannot deal with that problem legislatively but that this is clearly an internal adminis- trative function. I think it is important for us to understand that this is the next major step within the Department, assuming this legislation becomes law. Mr. READ. Many of the members who have said that they will support this bill have said so with the caveat that we must turn greater attention to career development to make it a reality and that would certainly be our intent. Mr. FASCELL. I think we are all aware of and sensitive to the dynamics of any bureaucracy. It is strictly human nature that if the political cone is the way to become an ambassador, then everybody is going to fight within the agency to get into that cone. Anybody who is relegated to a less desirable cone is not going to be too happy with it. The same thing happens in the military. If you are in the Navy you fight to get command of a ship because you know if you don't, you are never going to be an admiral. I can't think of a more impor- tant problem that would have to be addressed in order to improve morale, if we enact a structure which gives you the basis to operate. Mr. READ. I would agree fully with that. I believe it is simply wrong to have someone coming up through a single career line sud- 52-083 0 - 80 - 4 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 denly expected to be a good general manager without having appre- ciated through experience the essential work that is done in other components of the service. Mr. FASCELL. Let me explore for just one additional moment the incoming personnel. How are they assigned to various cones now? Mr. READ. I will ask Harry to answer that. Mr. BARNES. One footnote on the previous question first. We have some preliminary work underway because we recognize that even if nothing were to change we have to do a better job of providing this variety of experience. We are thinking along the lines of what we are calling a tentative major-minor type arrangement. One statistic, about a third of our consular officers are now serving out of that, so we are already moving in that direction. Mr. FASCELL. You say about a third? Mr. BARNES. About a third. We are trying to find some opportuni- ties for the political officers to serve in the consular field so they can get that kind of experience. In terms of how we handle the individuals, one of the purposes as I was implying earlier of the functional tests on the written examina- tion is to get some idea of where we think people might best serve. We give a tentative designation when they first come into the service. We give the individuals a chance to comment on that tentative designa- tion if they think it does not make sense. Mr. FASCELL. Who is we? Mr. BARNES. We, in the case of the junior officer branch of the bureau personnel. In addition, we think it important to give each of our new officers a chance to work in the consular field because that underlies so much of what we do all the way through. As you know well, better than anybody else, we have had increasing needs for consular services so we have that opportunity provided for junior officers. In the first 4 years, and that is the period now set by statute before a decision is granted to grant tenure to a new Foreign Service officer candidate, there is at least one assignment in the tentative functional field. At the time the individual is passed for tenure, we then go on to the midcareer level confirming that field or if experience has shown that that field does not make sense designating a new field. Mr. FASCELL. When the prospective applicant or a new employee is being considered for assignment, does he get a face-to-face discussion with somebody in the Department? Mr. BARNES. Yes. We do this with each new junior officer class. There was a class, as a matter of fact, sworn in just last week and in the course of the next couple days, to take that specific example, these individuals will be told what are the assignments available for them, given a chance to indicate what their preferences are, and have a chance to talk with their counselors. We.may give them our views and then get from them in effect a bid list. There will be the first, second, third, and fourth preferences. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just was wondering if we could put together a formula here. Maybe cones plus zones equal clones. Have any of you at the table worked in the consular field? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. BARNES. Yes. My first assignment I was a consular officer for most of the time. My second assignment I was a consular officer all of the time. Mrs. SCHROEDER. That may be the combat zone. What percentage of each class do you think is apt to be selected out for substandard performance each year and will that number be pre- set? I heard what you said, a lot of people dribble along and suddenly they are 55 and you tell them they are not going to make it. Are you going to preset a number for selection out each year? How do you change that phenomenon? Mr. READ. I think it would be completely inequitable to have a preset number. It has to be a function of the individual selection boards and their recommendations. If I could just spend a moment on the selection boards system because the committee addresed that with the Secretary and we didn't really have a chance to expand on it. It has been called "the worst system except any other that we have been able to think of." These boards operate completely independent of management. I think they are unique in the U.S. Government in that respect. Their operations are confined to performance records. No one is au- thorized to say a word to the boards or to get things before them that are not in the record in an individual's file. Career members of the boards are designated based on their records of excellent performance and both management and labor must agree on their membership. Public members are chosen from persons of great distinction and breadth and they add a vital factor in my judgment in the operations of the board. The precepts are worked over by management and labor and are the result of painstaking efforts to point up the criteria and the qualities that we hope and expect the boards to distinguish. It is a process that has evolved over the years. It is one which is never static because there are changes every year in the precepts in efforts to im- prove their validity. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I understand that.:[ think it is still very difficult to crank out the old boy network and I think we have to continue to work on it. Would people who are denied grade step increases going to be allowed any appeal? Mr. READ. Yes, but only if there is an aggrievable issue, such as something improper in their files to which they have full access. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So the files would be open. Mr. READ. There is full access to one's own file. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What about placement assistance for officers who where selected out? Mr. READ. Thanks to the committee, last year we were authorized to contract with a service which asfists such persons in finding second careers. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Have they been successful? Mr. READ. It is perhaps too early to make any final judgment, but I think it has been something that we have desperately needed. We have been in a horse and buggy age relying on two or three people inside to do this sort of thing and they have just not known the oppor- tunities that were available outside. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have such a series of questions and I am afraid because of the time I should submit them for the record. I have been Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 46 very concerned about the Hay study which we could discuss for 2 hours whether you need an agencywide bargaining unit. I find that a little hard to swallow. I hear about how labor and management are all together but I am not sure that it really works to put super- visors in the same unit. I have some questions as to why you need a Foreign Service labor relations board rather than just subjecting your employees to the Fed- eral Labor Relations Authority. Why do you have to create two, why cannot we use the same? Mr. Chairman, do you want me to submit them for the record? Mr. FASCELL. Whatever. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Why not submit them for the record because I have an idea they are going to be very difficult to deal with in a super- ficial manner. Mr. READ. Could I discuss two points? One you mentioned earlier, whistle blowing. Every single feature in regard to protection of whistle blowers that you wrote into the Civil Service Reform Act last year applies to the Foreign Service stem to stern. Those merit principles are incorporated in this bill. In addition to that we have a dissent channel and an open forum process, and we feel that we are the van- guard, not the rearguard, in this respect. Second, on the reason why the Civil Service Reform Act's title VII on labor-management relations is not applicable or germane to the Foreign Service without major, adaptations, if you took the definitions of supervisor and manager which are stated in that act, you would probably have a Foreign Service' bargaining unit that would not number more than a fraction of its present size. I don't know what the exact percentage would be, but it would be an emaciated bargaining unit because we have very junior personnel who in a technical sense are doing supervisory duty abroad with Foreign Service nationals, et cetera. There are, I think we can convince you, very good reasons for separation on the fundamental issue. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Secretary, we will submit a lot of questions to you and give you reasonable time to respond and then we would like to evaluate those and perhaps follow up on the responses. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. I think it would be safe to say that in the matter of promotion and retention that the whole system does pretty well hinge on the selection board. That is already true and it will be true. Is that a fair thing to say? Mr. READ. Yes. The boards will remain a cornerstone of the process. Under the bill the boards will be asked to make recommendations on some additional matters such as career extensions, limited renewable career extensions where the needs of the service will be considered as well and which will create a new extremely useful procedure. Some of our senior officers have advocated making limited career extensions the exclusive procedure for service at the top of the Foreign Service. We did not want to go that far with untested procedure but we think that it provides a creative new procedure. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Michel. Mr. MICHEL. I just wanted to emphasize that this limited career extension feature again rests upon action by the selection boards in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 evaluating the performance of the senior personnel to whom that fea- ture would be applicable. It is not something outside the selection board process. Mr. BUCHANAN. I would like-and you can do it privately, per- sonally, in whatever way-but I would like to be walked through the whole scene of the selection of selection boards, of whom they are composed, how you arrive at them. They really hold the fate of the Foreign Service in their hands. Let me indicate some of my own areas expressed by my colleagues. For example, I am inclined to believe that there was a time not in the not too distant past in the Foreign Service when women were thought to be primarily cultural fixtures and so like when you are testing a woman you know she used to know about the opera or if she does not she'does not stand a very good chance. You have had a tradi- tional service that has been comprised primarily of white male gradu- ates of certain particular institutions Mrs. SCHROEDER. None of which are in the South. Mr. BUCHANAN. None of which are in the South. I am sure that many of them are excellent because those are excel- lent institutions and there are many excellent people in the Foreign Service. Then to the extent that those people may have influenced or even dominated the selection board process, like the gentleman from Colorado I cannot help but think that has had some impact upon the fate of such women and minorities and graduates of the University of Alabama who may have been trying to get somewhere in the For- eign Service. This is negatively stated because it is a concern for the future, not a criticism of the past, you understand. I really would like rather sub- stantial reassurance that there is a present effort and there may be an ongoing effort to correct any deficiencies that may have arisen even out of that situation to the extent that I have fairly described them. Mr. READ. Good. Let me add a historical footnote. When the 1946 act was passed there were 856 Foreign Service officers. I don't know what the Ivy League percentage was at that point but it must have been gargantuan. Most of them had served exclusively abroad and didn't know the United States. One of the changes in the 1946 act was that Foreign Service officers in the future should be drawn from all walks of life. The goal was set some years ago. We think that we have a more precise and contemporary set of goals here. In terms of the operations of the selection boards I would like very much to get your advice, Mr. Buchanan, and would welcome it. . Mr. BARNES. We would be glad to provide that walk through. We do make a conscious effort to see that women and minorities.are rep- resented as members of the board. Mr. BUCHANAN. Very good. I really would appreciate the walk through. I don't know whether it would be useful for the record. Mr. FASCELL. Yes; it will be useful for the record. Why don't we wait until we get to that section of the bill and we can analyze both the proposed new law and the old law. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. Mr. READ. Side by side copies will be available. Mr. FASCELL. What I would like to do now is start at section 104 of the bill, so let's turn to the book. We will skip the general pro- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 visions in 101, 102 and 103. Is there any major substantive change in 104? Mr. READ. Yes. If I might, I will ask Mr. Michel to pick up at this point. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Michel. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, there are two features of this section which are departures from existing law which I would like to ce'l to your attention. First of all, the United States has become a party to two major international agreements on the subject of consular re- lations and diplomatic relations since enactment of the 1946 acts. These of course are the Vienna Diplomatic Convention and the Vienna Consular Convention which are in force for most of the nations of the world today. Those are sources of identification of consular and diplomatic functions. That is a new feature. Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me. Would that not be covered by just saying "international agreements"? Mr. MICHEL. As a matter of emphasis and specificity Mr. FASCELL. That is the reason you mentioned the two. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. What is the other one? Mr. MICHEL. That is to recognize the role of the Foreign Service in providing guidance which is in paragraph 2 of section 104, appearing on page 8 of the draft bill. This has been a traditional function of the Foreign Service but it was not explicitly recognized as such in the existing law Mr. FASCELL. So you have given it a statutory base? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Let's go to the next section. Any substantive change in section 201 ? Mr. MICHEL. This is a consolidation of a couple of existing laws and I don't think makes any substantive change. It just pulls together the role of the Secretary of State and puts it in one place. Mr. FASCELL. Section 202. Mr. MICHEL. Section 202(a) is also a consolidation. This bill, in title II, repeals provisions that relate to the exercise of Foreign Service personnel authorities by the Agency for International De- velopment and by the International Communication Agency. It puts those agencies directly into the Foreign Service Act. This somewhat broadens the authority available to those agencies. Mr. FASCELL. That is in subparagraph (a) ? Mr. MICHEL. Well, yes. And (b) simply then is a technical amend- ment to carry out subsection (a). Rather than refer to each of these agencies throughout the bill where it says the Department or Secre- tary of State, it simply says that the terms "Department" and "Secre- tary" will be read as if they also referred to IDCA and USICA. I would note that there is a cross-reference to chapter 12 of the bill which emphasizes the goal of maximum compatability in the Foreign Service personnel system. Mr. FASCELL. Well, (c) is self-explanatory and (d) is self-explan- atory. How about section 203? Mr. MICHEL. Section 203 is taken directly from existing law, there is no substantive change. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. Section 204. Mr. MICHEL. Section 204 restores the Director General as a statutory officer with a generally stated function. The Director General was pro- vided for in the 1946 act. However, in 1949 legislation was enacted which took the functions of the Director General in the law and trans- ferred them to the Secretary, who then redelegated them. We provide in this bill that the Director General will assist the Secretary of State. The Office of Director General is also elevated to a Presidential ap- poinment with the advice and consent of the Senate. The bill con- templates that the Director General will be a principal assistant to the Secretary in the management of the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. So you give them a statutory base ? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. You raise his level within the Department? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. And that is all that 204 does? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. How about 205? Mr. MICHEL. Section 205 similarly establishes the Inspector General as a Presidential appointee by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is an anomaly in the 1946 act in that it provides for Foreign Service inspectors but not a Foreign Service Inspector Gen- eral to head this group of inspectors. The functions of the Inspector General, which are spelled out in this section, are drawn from existing law. Subsection (b) which speaks about the interagency role of the In- spector General, generally reflects current practice and places an em- phasis on the programs that are under the supervision of the chief of mission in a foreign country. This subsection contemplates an inter- agency review role for the Inspector General in order to assess the con- sistency of the operations of our overseas missions with U.S. foreign policy and with the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the chief of mission. Mrs. ScHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, why does he report to the Secretary of State? Why does he not have the independence to report to the Congress? As I read this, he is not as independent as Inspectors General in other agencies are. Mr. MICHEL. I am not sure I follow the question. Mrs. SCHROEDER. The Inspectors General in domestic agencies can report directly to the Congress. As I read this, the IG of Foreign Service is under the Secretary of State; is that correct? Mr. MICHEL. This is intended to provide an officer who, like the Director General, is an assistant to the Secretary of State in the man- agement of the Foreign Service. Mrs. SCHROEDER,. What if we would like for him to be more inde- pendent? We would have to change the legislation? Mr. MICHEL. You would have to change the legislation and then you would have a question of the relationship between the Inspector Gen- eral and the Secretary. A judgment would have to be made as to whether the office was more or less effective as a result. Mr. FASCELL. Who presently performs the duties of the Inspector General who would be provided for in the act? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. There is an Inspector General; the office is created administratively. The incumbent, I think, is always a senior career officer. Mr. READ. Yes; Bob Brewster, the incumbent, is a career officer, as were his predecessors, Ted Elliott and Bob Sayre. Mr.FASCELL. So you have Bob Brewster and that is an adminis- trative appointment? Mr. MICHEL. He is appointed by the Secretary of State. Mr. FASCELL. This contemplates the same general relationship? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. And you make him a Presidential appointee subject to confirmation by the Senate? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But you are not going to go the way you did last year, looking for waste and abuses and so forth ? Mr. MICHEL. We think this is a different kind of a mission. He is looking at the management of the Foreign Service in a policy sense as well as in the traditional auditing kind of a sense.and is a manage- ment assistant to the Secretary of State. Mr. FASCELL. Are there inspectors general now in ICA and AID? Mr. MICHEL. There is an Auditor General of AID and there is an ICA equivalent of the inspector general. I am not sure of the title. Mr. FASCELL. The Auditor General in AID is statutorily based? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. How about the inspector general in USICA? Mr. MICHEL. I am not sure of the status of that officer in ICA. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Let somebody find out and let's get that in the record. Mr. MICHEL. This officer is not intended to duplicate or substitute for those agency auditing officials. Mr. FASCELL. Well, who performs internal auditing functions now for State? Mr. MICHEL. Within State there is an audit branch that is within the office of the Inspector General, but that office does not inspect the books of other agencies. Mr. FASCELL. What is the statutory relationship of this Inspector General with the other agencies? Mr. MICHEL. He or she, in cooperation with the other agencies, would review the conduct of the programs of the overseas mission from the standpoint of policy consistency and the relationship of the running of those programs to the responsibilities of the chief of mission and the Secretary of State. It is not the same as auditing and there is a co- operative relationship that exists, and we hope will continue to exist, with the other agencies. Mr. FASCELL. But this statutory position for State would have no authority over USICA or AID; is that correct? Mr. MICHEL. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. OK. Let's go to the next section. What does (c) mean? Mr. MICHEL. That is drawn from the existing .provisions of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. There is no substantive change. Mr. FASCELL. Section 206. Mr. MICHEL. Section 206 reestablishes by statute a board of the Foreign Service; a board with that designation was provided for in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 the 1946 act. Its functions were transferred to the President by reor- ganization plan in 1965 and then redelegated back to the Secretary of State by Executive order. The bill would provide that there would be such a board established by the President. It blends the notions of a legislative and a Presidential basis for the board and the legisla- tion describes the role of the board as advisory to the Secretary of State. Mr. FASCELL. Now I notice that this board is essentially the same as provided in the 1946 act. Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. This board is composed of members of other agencies and yet it is advisory to the Secretary only. I don't follow that. Mr. MICHEL. Well, it is advisory to the Secretary of State, though it has some across-the-board responsibilities which are discussed back in chapter 12 of the bill and it facilitates the objective of maximum compatibility among the agencies that use the Foreign Service system. We want to have one Foreign Service opexated by several agencies who have the need for these personnel authorities. We do not want to have three or four Foreign Services. The board is a helpful tool in being sure that we have one Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. All Tight. By the way, I expect my colleagues to inter- rupt at any point here. Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Pritchard. Mr. PRITCHARD. Do you have anything comparable at this point? Mr. READ. Yes, it exists at the present time by Executive order, Mr. Pritchard. Mr. PRITCHARD. Is the makeup quite similar to this? Mr. READ. Yes. Mr. PRITCHARD. How often does it meet? Mr. READ. About every month, I would guess, on the average. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Does it file cases? Mr. READ. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Does it disclose the advice it is handing out? Mr. READ. Is there a record of their deliberations on reaching posi- tions of advice? Mrs. SCHROEDER. Are they open? Mr. READ. Yes and no. Mrs. SCHROEDER. They are not? Mr. READ. No, when the board is advising the Secretary in most cases. Mr. PRITCHARD. I think that is very good. It depends on the thrust of what they are doing. It is not a matter of deciding cases? Mr. MICHEL. There is an adjudicatory role of the board in the labor management area under the present Executive order which would not be continued by this bill. Mr. FASCELL. Because it is moved over into some other part? Mr. MICHEL. It is moved into the Foreign Service labor relations board. That new body will conduct proceedings on the record, such as adjudicatory boards do. Mr. PRITCHARD. It is different from the role of this board as you envision. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 52 Mr. FASCELL. This board would be purely advisory? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. And the adjudicatory function is removed? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Adjudications would be on the record. However, just as when the members of the grievance board, having heard a case, deliberate over the outcome, I don't think they will do so in public. This is like an appellate court, whose members would not sit around in public and discuss the merits of a case before them. Mr. FASCELL. But there is an appeals procedure? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. All right. We will review that in more detail when we get to that part of the bill. Let's go to section 301. Mr. MICHEL. Section 301 (a) restates the general rule that is now set out in several places in the 1946 act. The 1946 act says Foreign Service officers shall be citizens of the United States, Foreign Service Reserve officers shall be citizens, and.so forth. This generalizes the citizenship requirement and simply notes that consular agents need not be citizens of the United States and foreign national employees, by definition, are not citizens of the United States. Mr. FASCELL. How about (b) ? Mr. MICHEL. Section 301(b) is also consolidation of provisions of existing law. This is one of the places where merit principles are specifically noted. "Merit principles" is a term of art in this bill. It is defined by citation to the merit system principles in the Civil Service Reform Act. Those principles are made explicitly applicable here as they are in other places throughout the bill. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What kind of physical examinations does the Secretary provide? Mr. MICHEL. I can't speak to the details of the examinations that are provided for entry into the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. Well, you are going to give us the specifics as requested by Mr. Gray on both the oral and the written examinations so you might as well submit to us a copy of the medical requirements, too. Mrs. ScHROEDER. And other. Mr. BUCHANAN. And other. Mr. FASCELL. You might as well tell us what other is. Is that mental? Mr. READ. I am not sure. Mr. MICHEL. I think that is taken from the existing provision of law. Mr. READ. We do have a program for the handicapped. Mr. FASCELL. How about subparagraph (c) ? Mr. MICHEL. That is drawn from a law enacted in 1970 which es- tablished the Foreign Service Information Officer Corps and (d) Mr. PRITCHARD. Mr. Chairman. Isn't that quite a bar to women? Mr. MICHEL. There are fewer women who are veterans. This is not a specific provision that says you will give preference to someone who is a veteran over a woman. Mr. PRITCHARD. I didn't say that. The end result is that this is one of the reasons why it is more difficult for women and I would ask the gentlelady from Colorado, though I am sure, isn't this one of the major parts for women getting into the veterans preference? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. Many of us had hoped that they would give vet- erans preference for those who fought the war on poverty. For awhile, there was a 3-percent limitation on the number of women that could be in the Service for a long period of time. Mr. PRITCHARD. A vast majority are men. Mr. MICHEL. Foreign Service officers are not covered by the entire veterans preference laws and this subsection says, nevertheless, that service as a member of the Armed Forces will be taken into consideration. Mr. PRITCHARD. It is so many points on a score or anything? Mr. MICHEL. No. Mr. PRITCHARD. It is a subjective score. When you are all done you are supposed to take it into consideration. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Is there any veterans retention preference or ap- peal, anything like that?' Mr. MICHEL. A member of the Foreign Service who is a veteran may have access to the Merit Systems Protection Board in some cir- cumstances of dismissal. We have provided in the bill for an election of remedies because of an overlap with the Grievance Board's jurisdiction. The individual will make an election of remedies and can go to the Merit 'Systems Protection Board or to the Foreign Service Grievance Board, but not both. Mr. FASCELL. Other than the option provided on the election of remedies which is someplace else in the bill, section (c) simply re- states present administrative practices? Mr. MICHEL. Present law. Public Law 90-494, section 14. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, you have on page 2, section 101 (a) (3) that the Foreign Service should be representative of the Ameri- can people, aware of the principles and history of the United States and informed of current concerns and trends in American life, knowl- edgeable of other nations' affairs, cultures and languages, available to serve in assignments throughout the world, and operated on the basis of merit principles. Mr. MICHEL. I certainly would hesitate to say there should be no veterans language. Mr. PRITCHARD. It may be. I think you are handling it all right. I have a very strong bias against specific points in a situation like this at this point and I think that- Mr. BUCHANAN. The point may be but I want to reiterate this term about affirmative action and making sure that the law itself is ade- quately specific. Mr. FASCELL. We can get into that later, if that is satisfactory. All right. How about section 302? Mr. MICHEL. Section 302 (a) identifies those members of the Serv- ice who may be appointed only by the President by and with the ad- vice and consent of the Senate. A difference from present law is that the Ambassador at Large is identified separately. At present, the Ambassador at Large is an appointment under the President's con- stitutional powers to appoint ambassadors and the salary is the salary of a chief of mission. We have had some distinguished Ambassadors at Large serving through most of the recent past and this bill would expressly acknowledge that there is such a category. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. In other words, that gives a statutory base to what we have been doing? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Why not do away with a lot of paperwork? Mr. MICHEL. We do. The Foreign Service officer is initially appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, given a commis- sion as a Foreign Service officer, diplomatic officer and a consular of- ficer. I think this is an important feature that singles out the Foreign Service Officer Corps. The promotions of the Foreign Service officers traditionally, and under the legislation that has existed in the past, have been by appoint- ment to a new class. Every promotion requires a new appointment. Now the draft bill would allow the Secretary of State to implement the selection board recommendations on promotion through the middle and upper ranks of the Foreign Service salary schedule so that once initially appointed an officer could then be promoted without having to be reconfirmed, without all that paperwork and the delay that attends that process. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But you are still going to keep it there for the initial appointment? Mr. MICHEL. Yes and also for the Senior Foreign Service. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have some questions about how realistic that is, too. Mr. MICHEL. Well, it is a distinguishing feature of the Foreign Service Officer Corps which I think is of considerable importance to A. lot of Foreign Service officers. Mrs. SCHROEDER. It may be, but that may be what makes it more as a fraterr ity. . Mr. MICHEL. It is something like the commissioned corps in the military who attach importance to their Presidential appointments. The other new reference in this subsection is to the career Senior Foreign Service which is something that was not a single group under prior law but rather we had senior members of the Foreign Service, some of whom were officers and some of whom were reserve officers. Now we propose a single Senior Foreign Service, all of whom would be Presidential appointees if they are in career appointments. Mr. FASCELL. So that clause in subparagraph (a) (1) is a substantive change for a career member of the Foreign Service'! Mr. MICHEL. Yes. I might skip here, if I may, to the Secretarial appointments. This. bill contemplates two appointing authorities, the President for those mentioned in this subsection and all others would be appointed by the Secretary of State, including any limited appointments in the Senior Foreign Service and appointment of candidates to be Foreign Service officers. Mr. FASCELL. What about subsection (b) ? That is new statutory language to comply with the thrust of this bill, is it? Mr. MICHEL. The personal rank provisions in paragraph 2 are cur- rent law. Subsection (b) of this section is taken from section 571 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. It is different only with respect to the authority provided for a career member of the Senior Foreign Service to retain salary and eligibility for performance pay even if appointed to a Presidential office. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. In other words, that language starting on line 18 down through line 25 is new language. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. If appointed heretofore as an ambassador, he would receive a statutory salary of an ambassador although he retains his career status as a Foreign Service officer. We now say you retain your career status and you may elect to retain your salary as a member of the Senior Foreign Service and continue to compete for perform- ance pay. This will avoid some of the most able officers risking a reduc- tion in salary. It is parallel to the provision that applies to the Senior Executive Service in the Civil Service Reform Act. Mr. FASCELL. Section 303. Mr. MICHEL. Section 303, as I mentioned earlier, simply says every- one who is not appointed by the President is appointed by the Secretary. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Is that current law? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, it is a consolidation. Mr. FASCELL._ Section 311. Mr. MICHEL. Section 311 is drawn entirely, I believe, from existing law. I can give you the citations. The side-by-side- Mr. FASCELL. The side-by-side will show the citations? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. This comes entirely from provisions of existing law. Mr. FASCELL. That whole section does, section 311? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. All right; section 321. Mr. MICHEL. Well, section 321 affirms with respect to the new cate- gory of Senior Foreign Service that the members, like other members of the Foreign Service, are assigned to a salary class, not to a position. It is a rank-in-person service like the rest of the Foreign Service. It also establishes a limitation intended to protect the career char- acter of the Service, providing not more than 5 percent may be non- career. This reflects the current composition of the senior ranks of the Foreign Service and would preserve that predominantly career character. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Why don't you have the 10-percent figure that we have in the senior executive service? Mr. MICHEL. Well, the 10-percent limit as we understand it was arrived at on the basis of experience within the civil service. Experi- ence within the Foreign Service indicates that a 5-percent limit reflects the realities and that a 10-percent limit would be an invitation to alter those realities. Mrs. SCHROEDER. It would also be a limitation for affirmative action? Mr. MICHEL. No; I don't know that that is true. Mrs. SCHROEDER. It could. Noncareer slots could be used to hire minorities and women. Mr. MICHEL. We are talking about the generals of the Foreign Serv- ice, if you will. Mrs. SCHROEDER. And the civil service. Mr. MICHEL. And this, of course, does not include the noncareer Ambassadors who can certainly be. appointed by the President from anywhere. Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is right; but these are still the managers, really. These are your super executive management team. You know we opted for a 10-percent figure which, I think, gives you a little more Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 56 flexibility. That is certainly not political control by any means but I think it allows for a little more flexibility and change sometime. Mr. READ. If I could just add a point. The 5 percent is defined in the section-by-section analysis that we have submitted as not including career Senior Foreign Service persons who may be needed abroad for limited appointments. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I don't see it being anything Mr. FASCELL. Except for size, maybe. Mr. MICHEL. We generally do not bring people in as generals and expect them to operate in this milieu which is predominantly a career service. Mrs. SCHROEDER. As is civil service. Mr. MIcHEL. The bill would provide for opportunities for entry into the Service at any level; the statutory limitation is only on the most senior levels. There is nothing that prevents somebody coming in at midlevel and being promoted. Mr. FASCELL. I take issue with that but it is all right. I think what we better do at this point is stop; since we are going to have a vote here shortly on an important bill. I want to thank you gentlemen for being with us today and carrying us this far along in the bill. This process is simply to get us better acquainted with the matter. We are far from making any judgments on anything at this point and we will just pick it up from here as fast and as soon as we can. Mr. READ. We will take no holidays and be at your disposal. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much. The subcommittees will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the subcommittees adjourned.] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1979 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ox FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, AND COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, Wa8ltington, D.C. The joint subcommittees met at 9:35 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patricia Schroeder (chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service) presiding. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Chairman Fascell, committee members, witnesses, we welcome you all to the second day of numerous hearings on the Foreign Service Act of 1979. Members of the committee will notice that the bill in their note- books today varies somewhat from the bill which was before us last week. Sadly, I must report that the gnomes at OMB have been busy making little changes. It is kind of like coming home to find there have been mice in your cupboard. It takes weeks before you figure out all the boxes that they have gotten into. Today's witnesses are John Reinhardt of the International Com- munication Agency and Bob Nooter of the Agency for International Development. The theme of today's hearing might be called Conver- sion. My subcommittee had some dealings with AID a few months ago about the conversion of policy and program positions in Washing- ton from civil service to Foreign Service. Today, ICA is telling us about the problems of mandatory conversion of domestic-only Foreign Service employees to Civil Service. It is beginning to sound like a convention of missionaries trading stories about how and why and whether people can and will be converted. But, with that, let us begin. My cochair, Dante Fascell may have some comments. Mr. FASCELL. No comments. Mrs. SCHROEDER. He has no comments. It is up to you, you are on. Welcome. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. REINHARDT, DIRECTOR, INTERNA- TIONAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY Mr. REINHARDT. Madam Chairperson, members of the subcom- mittees, I am very pleased to appear before you today to discuss an is- sue of great importance and interest to those of us in the Interna- (57) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 tional Communication Agency, that is the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979. While I have had the pleasure of meeting with the International Operations Subcommittee on many previous occasions, I have not met previously with the Civil Service Subcommittee. Therefore, with your permission, before I begin my discussion of the Personnel Act itself, I would like to take a few minutes to describe the International Com- munication Agency. Our mandate and objectives as an agency decidedly influenced our view of the personnel system. USICA came into being on April 1, 1978, as a result of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977. It is comprised of the former U.S. Information Agency, and the former Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State. We are an independent foreign affairs agency, charged by the Presi- dent with : Encouraging the broadest possible exchange of people and ideas between our country and other nations; increasing understand- ing of our society and policies among other peoples; expanding the knowledge of Americans about societies abroad; and advising our Government in the formulation of foreign policy. Our budget for the current fiscal year is $418 million. Our staff includes 8,300 employees, of which 4,022 are American personnel and 4,125 are non-Americans hired locally overseas. Our American per- sonnel include 1,570 GS and 155 GG employees ; 870 Foreign Service information officers: and 1,105 Foreign Service reserve officers, 900 of whom are the so-called domestic specialists. We also have 230 wage grade and 245 Foreign Service staff employees. By the end of 1979, we will be operating 205 posts in 125 countries. To fulfill our mission we : Facilitate the international exchange of nearly 5,000 scholars and professionals every year; annually arrange for approximately 400 visiting American experts to talk to foreign audiences on topics of mutual concern ; broadcast 820 hours per week in 38 languages on the Voice of America; maintain and support read- ing rooms, libraries and centers in over 100 countries; produce or acquire videotape programs and films for use in our posts overseas; produce approximately 10 large exhibits and 75 small exhibits per year; and through our offices overseas, maintain regular contact with a broad segment of opinion leaders, including the media and the aca- demic and cultural communities in each country. The Agency has six Presidential appointees : the Director at Execu- tive Level II; the Deputy Director at Executive Level III, and four Associate Directors at Executive Level IV, one each for educational and cultural affairs, broadcasting, vrograms, and management. Our five geographic area offices, usually headed by career Foreign Service information officers, parallel the 'structure of the geographic bureaus in the Department of State. With this general background, Madam Chairperson, I would now like to talk about the Foreign Service Act itself. and the particular impact which it can have on the Agency and its employees. Proposals for changing personnel policies deserve the closest scru- tiny 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 Serv- ice, and it has weighed on our minds at every step of our deliberations Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 59 about the proposed bill. We have consulted with representatives of our union, local 1812 of the American Federation of Government Em- ployees, 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 Secre- tary Read, Director General Barnes and other officials of the Depart- ment. Our lawyers and personnel staffs have been in regular contact with their counterparts at the Department of State as the bill was drafted. The proposed act reaffirms the need for a professional Foreign Serv- ice with its own personnel system. Secretary Vance has already de- scribed the purposes of the bill. I associate myself fully with those purposes and urge the committee to report favorably on the bill as rapidly as may be possible. There are a few major provisions which I would like to address: The bill creates a Senior Foreign Service comparable to the senior executive 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 pres- ent time Foreign Service officers do not enjoy many of the incentives which will be available to their counterparts in the senior executive service. The Senior Foreign Service proposal would put the two career services 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 performance, as this bill does. The bill provides a single Foreign Service salary schedule for Amer- ican personnel. The new schedule will supersede the two overlapping schedules that now exist for officers and staff employees. This will en- able us to achieve the long sought objective of having a uniform pay scale for all Foreign Service personnel, including Foreign Service in- formation officers, Foreign Service staff employees, and Foreign Serv- ice Reserve officers who are available for worldwide assignment. The bill will provide a useful statutory basis for labor-management relations, which has been lacking heretofore. Consistent with Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, which estab- lished TTSICA. the. bill provides the Director with all authority nec- essary to manage USICA's personnel systems. While seeking the max- imum compatibility in personnel policies and practices among the for- eign affairs agencies, it allows for differences necessary for the accom- plishment of separate Agency missions. 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 3 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 out into two sys- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 60 tens-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. USICA 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 Foreign Service personnel system unless they are available for assignment overseas. Further, 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 For- eign Service "domestic specialists," known as FAS employees. They work as Voice of America technicians and broadcasters, magazine editors, exhibit designers, and in many of the positions are 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-person system. For these reasons, 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 Ameri- can Federation of Government Employees, the exclusive bargaining representative of our Foreign Service personnel. That agreement provides that USICA's Foreign Service "domestic specialists" would not be subject to mandatory conversion to civil service, though they have the option, through June 30, 1981, of converting voluntarily. Under the agreement, those who do not exercise this option would re- main 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 Serv- ice and civil service within USICA would be achieved in time, through attrition and the application 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 pro- posed 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 management. 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 ap- pointed 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 for the temporary exemption of USICA "domestic specialist" employees from mandatory conversion until July 1, 1981, the period allowed for voluntary conversion under the con- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 tract. Thus, the proposed legislation endeavors to preserve the es- sential thrust of the agreement with AFGE, while providing better personnel management and following the policy and procedures pro- posed for other foreign affairs agencies. However, I must be candid in stating that in the discussions regard- ing the preparation of this bill, and in view of the agreement with AFGE, I have opposed the application of this provision to our em- ployees. Many of the affected employees have expressed strong objec- tion to mandatory conversion. I am sure you will hear the testimony of their representatives. In summary, 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 sys- tem, to correct the inequities 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. Madam Chairperson, I am accompanied by several colleagues of our staff of USICA who have worked diligently on this bill and we, together, would be happy to try to answer your questions. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Reinhardt. We are very pleased to have you again with us this morning. Let me yield first to my colleagues for questions, and we will pro- ceed on, then.. Congressman Fascell, do you have any questions? Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am just trying to catch up with a contract for which a special exemption has- as been made in the proposal. Did I understand you correctly ? Mr. REINHARDT. You did, sir. Mr. FASCELL. And this contract runs out on July 1, 1981? Mr. REINHARDT. Only as it applies to the voluntary conversion por- tions of the agreement. That is, the approximately 900 employees in USICA have until June 30, 1981, to make a decison as to whether they want to convert to the civil service or remain in the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. You mean that is in the contract? Mr. REINHARDT. That is in our agreement with the union. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, you are going to do that regardless of the law? Mr. REINHARDT. Unless the law is changed. The agreement was made under the law that prevailed at the time. Mr. FASCELL. I am talking about this proposed law. Mr. REINHARDT. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, that agreement really has nothing to do with the proposed law. Mr. REINHARDT. It does not, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Go ahead. Mr. REINHARDT. The proposed law provides for mandatory toner= lion after that date for our employees, and mandatory conversion shortly after the passage of the act for other employees, that is, those in the Department of State. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. So, they are going to have under the present con- tract-I just want to see where the employees are coming from, I just want to understand it. Of course, they are going to tell me when they get here, so it will not make any difference; but I would like to know anyway. Under the contract that has been negotiated, which expires on June 30, 1981, people will have a choice who are FAS-is that the right designation? Mr. REINHARDT. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. 900 of them, approximately? Mr. REINHARDT. That is correct, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Out of how many people? Mr. REINHARDT. Out of approximately 4,000 American employees. Mr. FASCELL. So, they can make up their minds as to what is best for them, under that contract. Mr. REINHARDT. That is correct. Mr. FABCELL. And that choice is basically to do what, go to civil service, or not? Or go to civil service and get out? Mr. REINHARDT. Bear in mind, sir, that the so-called FAS category was a kind of never-never land; they were not in the Foreign Service and they were not out of the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. It was a special designation. Mr. REINHARDT. It was a special designation for USICA and the Department of State; it applied to both. Mr. FABCELL. Now, what is their choice under that contract? You say they have a voluntary choice. What is it? Mr. REINHARDT. The USICA officers, in accordance with our agree- ment with AFGE, now have the choice voluntarily to remain in the Foreign Service or to convert to the civil service, provided that they do it no later than June 30, 1981. This agreement was made in 1977, and it remains in effect as of now.. The proposed legislation Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me, I have to pursue that for just a minute, if you do not mind. Mr. REINHARDT. Sure. Mr. FABCELL. The deadline arrives and I am an employee, and I have made no choice. Where am I? Mr. REINHARDT. If they have not made a choice to convert to the civil service, they remain in the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. So, by not doing anything, I have made a choice. Mr. REINHARDT. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. I do not really have to do anything, then. Mr. REINHARDT. Unless you want to go the civil service, you do not have to do anything. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Now, let us assume that nobody does any- thing, all 900 convert, or stay where they are, or whatever it is. Then the bill becomes effective. Are they in the Foreign Service, or where are they? Mr. REINHARDT. They presumably would be in the Foreign Service. They would have a hard choice. Mr. FASCELL. Why? Mr. REINHARDT. They would have a hard choice if they were not available for worldwide duty. Anyone who is in the Foreign Service must be available for assignment worldwide. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. All right. Mr. REINHARDT. There are people who do not wish to be available. Mr. FASCELL: So, that would be an important factor in their volun- tary choice prior to June 30 because the contract expires then. See, I am looking to the next negotiation, and I want to know what is going to be on the line if this bill becomes law on July 1. I am willing to be perfectly reasonable, but I want to understand what we are playing with in terms of decisions; you see? Mr. REINHARDT. If this bill becomes law it provides that after July 30, 1981, the mandatory feature will be in effect for all em- ployees-USICA employees, AID employees, and the Department of State. Mr. FASCELL. So, there is nothing to negotiate about. Mr. REINHARDT. There would be nothing to negotiate at that point. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Chapter 3, section 333 authorizes an employment of Foreign Service spouses. Does your Agency now, or are you contemplating functional training for spouses in preparation for jobs overseas? Mr. REINHARDT. Yes; we have entered into an agreement with what is called the Family Liaison Office of the Department of State to provide the maximum training that we can for accompanying spouses, and to make good-faith efforts to secure positions for accompanying spouses. It is now in effect. We have been able to secure some positions. We have not been able to solve this problem completely. Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, I must compliment you, you are ahead of the State Department. We might put you in charge of the Department of State so we get a little more action. Mr. REINHARDT. Thank you for your compliment, Mr. Buchanan. I am not sure we are ahead of the State Department, we are working closely with them on this. Mr. BUCHANAN. Your modesty and your diplomacy are also ad- mirable, I must say, Mr. Ambassador. Let me ask you if there are any concerns which you expressed to either the Department of State or OMB which are not addressed. Mr. REINHARDT. No major concerns whatsoever, sir. The Depart- ment of State, the Secretary of State himself, knows our position on mandatory conversion, respects our position, and at the same time thought that he must support the legislation as presented to you. Mr. BUCHANAN. The bill as written reflects the intention to provide for a unified system for all foreign affairs agencies, but the promul- gation of regulations would appear to pave the way for some major differences. For example, it would appear that State could establish the 5-year time-in-class limit on an FSO-3, for example, while ICA could establish a 3-year limit and AID might establish an 8-year limit. I wonder if that prospect, which I believe could happen under the terms of the legislation, would not make possible a sort of bidding-up process between the various agencies involved, State, AID, 'ICA. You want to comment on that ? Mr. REINHARDT. I think only minimally, sir. Each of the agencies affected by the proposed legislation would have to subscribe to the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 64 principles of the Senior Foreign Service, and we would. Each of the agencies, on the other hand, would operate its own separate personnel system in accordance with those principles. Thus, whether the State Department had a 5-year and we had a 3-year, and AID had a 4-year limit in effect for time in class, it seems to me would not make a great deal of difference. These limitations would be made in light of the needs of the three particular services. Each would be bound by the principle however; neither would be permitted to abrogate the Senior Foreign Service, each would have to have one. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Ireland. Mr. IRELAND. Thank you, Madam' Chairman. If you could enlighten me on one subject about the length of service in the United States at the present time, the tour, and whether this would be changed in this legislation, in your opinion. Mr. REINHARDT. We do it by regulation, and so does the Depart- ment of State. The law provides that a Foreign Service officer who has served 8 years in the Department in a domestic assignment must accept an overseas assignment unless he secures the written permission of the Secretary of State to serve a ninth year. Within that law we in USICA have also formed a regulation that the length of the domestic assignment is 4 years. The officer who has served domestically for 3 years is promptly notified at the end of the 3 years that he should look forward to a foreign assignment no later than the end of the fourth year. A few exceptions are made to this regulation for what we think are good reasons, but that is the regulation. During the last 2 years we have successfully implemented it. Mr. IRELAND. If a great number of these employees remained in the Foreign Service instead of opting out in a sense, would you antic- ipate any change in that regulation? Mr. REINHARDT. I assume that you are referring to the so-called FAS employees. Mr. IRELAND. Right. Mr. REINHARDT. You have to bear in mind that the FAS. employees are domestic specialists. Despite the name these are people who serve in Washington. Now, a few of them have served a temporary tour of duty overseas, but by and large these are the people who are working in the Voice of America; or these are the people who are working to prepare magazines or exhibits in the United States. For reasons that I never clearly understood, they were put into this category called FAS. It was a good-faith effort on the part of man- agement and the employees. They had certain benefits from going into this category, the principal one being, in my judgment, the applica- bility of Foreign Service retirement to these employees. So, they went in for whatever reasons. This bill will not necessarily swell the Foreign Service rolls because many of these people may convert to the civil service. They could retain their Foreign Service annuity if they convert to the civil service. So, if I understand your question correctly, there will not neces- sarily be 900 people going into the Foreign Service. Mr. IRELAND. But let us take the ones that do convert, they would be subject to the regulation you described. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 65 Mr. REINHARDT. No question. Mr. IRELAND. Now, if a sizable number of those converted and sud- denly you are faced with the regulation of putting them overseas, do you anticipate any attempt to change that regulation? Mr. REINHARDT. I would not, sir. I think that we would adjust by recruitment; we would adjust by attrition; we would adjust by the promotion system. Mr. IRELAND. In theory, perhaps they got the best of both worlds. They have the better retirement, for instance, that you just men- tioned, but they do not have either the hazard or the inconvenience of traveling overseas; and if they stay in, in theory they give up the hazard or inconvenience of traveling overseas unless the regulations change or they are exempted in some fashion: So, all of a sudden they would have to go overseas. Mr. REINHARDT. You mean our regulation governing the tour of duty ? Mr. IRELAND. Right. Mr. REINHARDT. If they opt for the Foreign Service, that regulation would apply to them; but they would know this to begin with.' Mr. IRELAND. I understand. Mr. REINHARDT. They would have to make themselves..: available, for worldwide assignment. Mr. IRELAND. Right. Mr. REINHARDT. If -they did not opt for, that, 'they..would simply be in the civil service. They would have the benefit of the Foreign Service annuity system, that is correct; but we think that is only fair in light of the manner in which the FAS system was established. Mr. IRELAND. I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Could I pursue this for just a minute? The thought occurs to me, you see, that we would not want to be faced with a negotiation after mandatory conversion that provides an exemption in the contract, exemption of the tour of duty requirement, for those people foi' their. lifetime' in ? the service, or for 5 years, or for the length of the contract. Do you follow me? Mr. RREINHARDT. I follow you. MR. FASCELL. We do not think that would be fair. Mr. REINHARDT. That is correct, neither do I. Mr. FASCELL. Now, frankly, I do not understand-I will a little later, I am still struggling with this and of course it is difficult because the individuals are not here and we have not heard from them yet, but they will be able to speak for themselves. But with voluntary time to convert until June 30, at which point it becomes mandatory, and considering that employees have 2 or 3 years to make a decision to convert to the Foreign Service or the civil service, and they have the ability to take the best of the retirement systems. I cannot. understand what the hangup is. 'Could you enlighten me just a little bit so I will be ready when they testify ? Mr. REINHARDT. I am not sure I want to represent the union's views. Mr. FASCELL. I am sure you understand what it is, and I do not know, frankly, just exactly what it is. Mr. REINHARDT. Well, let me try again, sir. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. All right. Mr. REINHARDT. At the present time these so-called FAS employees, Foreign Service "domestic specialists" enjoy the following rights in common to all Foreign Service officers : They have rank-in-person; they participate in the Foreign Service retirement system; they have access to the Foreign Service grievance system, and on a kind of "grand- fathered" basis all officers who were in the Foreign Service on Septem- ber 2421975, have tax-free annuities if retired for medically determined inability to perform their official duties. Mr. FABCELL. Now, what you are telling me now is, they want all of the Foreign Service benefits without having to serve overseas. Mr. REINHARDT. Well, the fact is, sir, they have them. Mr. FASCELL. I understand that, and they do not want to give them up. The election on conversion is retirement, is that correct? And then also the rank-in-person as againstthe rank-in-job. Mr. REINHARDT. What they would lose would be the rank-in-person. They would lose access to the grievance system, and they would lose the tax-free annuity that they now have., Mr. FASCELL. Yes; that is substantial. Now, that makes a. little more sense. Let us examine this because unless there is some other way out- and I do not know right off the top,of my head what that is-you are talking about 900 people at the rate of attrition, then, as I see it. How long a period are we talking about? Mr. REINHARDT. We differ on this. Mr. FASCELL. Who is "we"? Mr. REINHARDT. Those of us sitting at this table. Mr. FASCELL. OK. (Laughter.] Mr. REINHARDT. Ms. Garcia thinks that this could last as long as 25 years. I think that she stretched it a little bit, but it would be a considerable period, 15, 20, 25 years. It would depend on the ages of the people. Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Mr. REINHARDT. Whether they retired, quit, what happened to them: But it would be a considerable period of time. In fairness to my State Department colleagues, this is what they do not like about the provision, and I can understand their position. Nevertheless, we have a binding agreement with the union and that makes it difficult. Mr. FASCELL. Right, I understand that. Thank you very much. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Leach. Mr. LEACH. Sir, have you reviewed the results of the Hay Asso- ciates study and if so, do you have any opinion of it? Mr. REINHARDT. I have not read the study. I know in general what it provides. I certainly do not have an opinion now. We favor the performance of the study. We do not know exactly how its provisions would apply to our agency, therefore I would like to submit an opinion later. Mr. LEACH. I would appreciate that very much because that will be important. In light of a statement the President made recently, would you hazard an opinion on whether you have too many or too few employees overseas? Mr. REINHARDT. We think it is about right, give or take a few. We have looked at this question very, very carefully on our own before the President made his recent statement and with minor excep- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 tions we do not think that we are an "offending" agency in this respect. Mr. LEACH. Thank you. I would like to share that opinion. I have certain biases about overseas posts, and one of those biases is that the Foreign Service information officers and your people have two things in common with the Foreign Service; one is that, in general, they get much more deeply into foreign cultures than Foreign Serv- ice officers do; second, they are a bit more of a creative mold, and maybe third, it always struck me that the power and strength of the United States today is very much in the cultural arena, and of all the things that we as Americans have to sell positively it is your job to do. I would hope that you would be able to sustain any attempt to cut back on your overseas assignments. Mr. REINHARDT. You are obviously a very keen observer. Mr. LEACH. Let me ask you, do you feel there is any unique problem in your a ency that is not addressed in this legislation that perhaps should be? Mr. REINHARDT. Well, I think there are some problems in the For- eign Service-we mentioned ?a couple of them-affecting our agency and all other Foreign Service agencies, that legislation can address. The spouse problem that we have discussed, for example, is quite a problem and it has grown in the last 10 years. The Foreign Service is no longer as attractive as it was-the fall of the dollar, for example; the unavailability of many of the ameni- ties that were available over the last 20 or 25 years ago, that simply are not there any longer. You cannot address this by legislation. It is obviously a more hazardous career than it was 20 or 25 years ago, terrorism and all the rest. And then, the general attractiveness of our oven society has done something to the Foreign Service men- tality. When I first came into the Foreign Service, the last thing that we generally wanted was for the personnel system to assign us to a Washington job; we wanted to stay overseas. In my own case, I was overseas about 1.1, years, I avoided a Washington assignment for 11 years. Some of my colleagues were even more successful. This has changed. An officer and his family is now assigned to Washington and for some reason-many reasons, no doubt-they are not beating on the door of the personnel office seeking a foreign as- signment. I submit there is not much you can do from your position about these and related problems. We are aware of them, and we work with diligence trying to overcome them. We are not always success- ful. But, legislation is not the answer. Mr. LEACH. Thank you, that is a very, very powerful assessment of trends. Let me ask you on a slightly different subject. Do you support mandatory retirement at 60 and, if so, why? Mr. REINHARDT. I do, sir. The Foreign Service is different, there is no question about it. That is the reason we have the Rogers Act of 1946 to begin with: he had recognized the difference between Foreign Service employment and Civil Service employment. It provides for rank-in-person. That is a major feature of it, and I do not think that any time in the foreseeable future would we want to eliminate that. Once that provision is legislated as it is now, and Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 as it is proposed under this legislation, we have tremendous problems at the top, with the people who finally rise to the top. In our own agency, for example, in the last 2 years we have promoted no more than half a dozen people to grade 1. This is very tough. on the officers who are at grade 4, and 3, and 2-they do not rise. Thus, the retire- ment provision enables them to rise more rapidly. More importantly, it seems to me,, one cannot demonstrate. this with any mathematical certainty, but the older we get in the Foreign Serv- ice, the more we like to stay in Washington. Frankly, we have diffi- culty in assigning the 61-, 62-year-old officer to an overseas post. It is understandable from a human and personal point of view-he has a house; he has children that just finished college; he has grandchildren, and he is not eager to go 6,000 miles away and leave them. This is a demonstrable factor in the assignment process today. Thus, I think if we did not have this provision in the law, we would have great difficulty administering the Foreign Service personnel system. Mr. LEACH. Thank you, sir. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Pritchard. Mr. PRITCHARD. I have no questions. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have some questions, too; I will submit most of them for the record because you have been very patient, have been sitting here for quite some time., I basically just wanted to get one thing clear for the record, there was a March 26 letter that you wrote to Mr. Read in which you said, "In short, I will not support any legislation which has a mandatory conversion feature in it." This morning you are now saying that you do support this legislation. I am wondering what happened between March 26 and today. Was it the Office of Management and Budget? Was it other features of the bill that you did not look at, at the time. Why the change from the newsletter that came out to this ? Mr. REINHARDT. There is not as much inconsistency there, Madam Chairperson, as you may think. This.~ oppsed legislation has evolved from about the 1st of January until the, present time, and the prow. posed legislation that we saw in early January, as I recall, is entirely different from what is now before this House. We modestly say that we were responsible , for many of the changes. We had hours of discussions and negotiations wth our colleagues in the Department of State. Thus, in very-good faith we are able to support this bill, with the one exception that I have tried to explain. It is still in there, and indeed, our colleagues in the De- partment of State have made a special provision for our 900 em- ployees. We do not think it goes quite far enough, as I have explained, but there has been no pressure from OMB ; there has been no pressure from Secretary Vance; he knows that I am testifying as, I am now, and he knows the great difficulty that we have with this conversion feature, for reasons that I have explained. But you should look, I submit,!., at the proposal in January and compare it, or really contrast it with the proposal now before you- it is a different bill.' Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCIROEDER. Do I also understand that you do not worry about the fact that in this bill it appears that the independence of ICA is going to be diminished? It appears that the Secretary of State will have a much greater Mr. REINHARDT. I am not sure how you are using the word "ap- pear." There is a specific provision-if my colleagues can find it- early in the. bill, that does not diminish the independence of the Agen- cy. My colleagues tell me that it is section 202 (d).. "Nothing in this act"-the proposal says-"shall. be. construed as diminishing the au- thority of the Director of the International. Communication Agency or the Director of the International Development Cooperation Agency." Mrs. SCHROEDER. Then you interpret this as not strengthening the Secretary of State in relation to your "agency. Mr.: REINHARDT. I think that it strengthens-the hands of the heads of all .agencies,.including!he Secretary of State. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But yyou do not feel that it diminishes the independ- ence of your agency at all n relation to the Secretary of State. Mr. REINHARDT. As we read the bill, it does not. We would not favor the, bill if it did. Mrs. SCHROEDER. In your March 26 .letter to Under Secretary Read again you ssaid that, "The window for entry into Senior Foreign Service is unnecessary," and today you endorsed the bill's proposed Senior Foreign. Service which has such a window. Have you changed your mind? Mr. REINHARDT. No; the debate with our colleagues, with Mr. Read and others, was over whether there should be a narrow or wide window. We recognized that there should be a window. We argued that as it was first conceived-3 years, I believe-that was entirely too narrow. So, we recognize there certainly has to be some kind of window. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes; and it is just how wide it was. Do you think it is now wide enough? Mr. REINHARDT. Yes; it is wide enough for us to support it, I think. Mrs. SCHROEDER. And again, you think there was a basic change from the bill that came out in January? Mr. REINHARDT. Certainly from the basic bill that came out in Janu- ary. That had it awfully narrow and gave the agencies little or no discretion in widening it. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Do you have "whistle-blowing" provisions in the ICA? Mr. REINHARDT. Yes, we do. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I heard you mention something about spouses. Do you have a policy, also, of hiring spouses abroad? Mr. REINHARDT. To the maximum extent possible. The -ma ximum extent-possible to date, I must confess, is not enough. We have a limited number of positions overseas-maybe Miss Garcia has the figure-we hired a certain number.. That window is too narrow. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Do you use. your own foreign national slots, or are you allowed to ask the State Department for foreign national slots for spouses, and what pay scales do you use, do you use the foreign national pay scales, or do you use the U.S. pay scale? Mr. REINHARDT. We use certain _ foreign national slots, and it is the foreign national pay scale that is used. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 70 Mrs. SCHROEDER. But you only use your own foreign national slots; is that correct? Mr. REINHARDT. That is correct. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Have you thought of asking the State Department for some of theirs for this problem. Mr. REINHARDT. It is not the number of slots that is the problem, it is the types of jobs that these jobs cover. These jobs go from chauffeur, typist-type work to senior foreign national advisers, and there are roughly 4,000 of them. So, it is not so much the number that bothers us as the type of employment that we must have. A spouse may not serve very well as a senior adviser to our staff, we obviously need a local person to do that, someone who knows the environment in which we work. On the other hand, a spouse may or may not want a typing job, or any of the ones in between that we have to offer. So, the limitation is not the number but the type of work. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, since it is also limited by the type of work, have you also looked to the State Department to find out if they have more of the kind and quality of job that you need. Mr. REINHARDT. The State Department foreign national slots may very well provide some jobs of interest to our spouses-and vice versa. Our posts in embassies around the world are perfectly free to engage in this kind of interchange. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What is ICA's record in hiring and promoting blacks, Hispanics, women, and other minorities? Mr. REINHARDT. Progressive and encouraging as compared with 10 to 15, to 20 years ago. Approximately 11 percent of our officer corps is minorities; these positions are held by minorities. Mrs. SCHROEDER. And by "minorities," you define that as Hispanics and blacks, or do you include women in there, too? Mr. REINHARDT. I do not, mainly blacks and Hispanics, Asians, na- tive Americans, the usual definition of "minority"-but mainly blacks and Hispanics. Approximately 15 percent of our officer corps is composed of women. At the entering level, approximately 19 percent of the officers now en- tering the Agency. are minorities, approximately 38 percent are women. We have made some progress. We certainly do not think that the "mil- lenium" has arrived, 11 percent is a trifle short, we think. We shall continue. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Again, I thank you very much for appearing, and I do have some more questions but I think I will submit them for the record in the interest of time. Does anyone else have anything he would like to add or subtract? Thank you very, very much for appearing this morning. Mr. FASCELL. Before you leave, Mr. Ambassador, could I ask you a question? What hannens to lawyers, how many lawyers do you have and what happens to them? Mr. REINHARDT. Here is one of them. How many lawyers do we have? Mr. FASCELL. One? Mr. REINHARDT. We have nine lawyers, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Where are they in this new setup? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. REINHARDT. They are domestic employees, civil service employees. Mr. FASCELL. Under the bill? Mr. REINHARDT. Maybe I had better let a lawyer answer your question. STATEMENT OF C. NORMAND POIRIER, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY Mr. PonuER. There are five in the Foreign Service as "domestic specialists." Mr. FASCELL. You mean right now? Mr. PoIRIER. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. What happens to them in this proposed legislation? Mr. POIRIER. They would be mandatorily converted under the pro- posed legislation. Mr. FASCELL. "They," which ones? Mr. POIRIER. The five who are in the Foreign Service would be man- datorily converted under the proposed legislation. Mr. FASCELL. I see. Is this a special provision or general provision in this bill? I just have not caught up with it yet. Mr. POIRIER. Well, those who are in the Foreign Service are there as "domestic specialists." Mr. FASCELL. I see; so they would mandatorily be converted. Now, are you concerned about the quality of the lawyer who is either Civil Service or Foreign Service? I cannot tell the difference, myself. Mr. POIRIER. No, I do not think that the system itself alters the quality of lawyer that we have. Mr. FASCELL. And do you think that if they mandatorily all become Civil Service, that in some way is going to lower the quality, or the attractiveness of the job for lawyers? Mr. PoiRIER. No. Mr. FASCELL. My experience in Washington is, you have to beat them off with a stick. [Laughter.] Mr. POIRIER. At the present time the market for lawyers in Washing- ton, as elsewhere, is very competitive. [Laughter.] For those looking for jobs. [Laughter.] Mr. FASCELL. You mean there are more lawyers than slots? Mr. POIRIER. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Again, thank you very much. The next witness we have this morning is Robert H. Nooter who is the Acting Administrator for the Agency for International Development. We welcome you, Mr. Nooter. STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. NOOTER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Mr. NooTER. Thank you, Mrs. Schroeder. With your permission and in the interest of time, I have a prepared statement which I suggest be submitted in full. for the record. I will Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 72 only summarize some of the highlights and read a short portion at the end. Mrs. SCHROEDER. That will be fine. Mr. NooTER. A lot of this material, of course, you have already been through. From the viewpoint of AID, the portions of the proposed legislation that are of special interest are these : First, the creation of a Senior Foreign Service to create a system comparable to the senior civil service; second the elimination of the Foreign Service staff category personnel and its separate pay scale, which creates an artificial dis- tinction between that category of personnel and our other Foreign Service people; and third, revision of the Foreign Service pay scale to make it more compatible with the civil service scale and then permit convertibility between the civil service and the Foreign Service. We do not have the problem which ICA has on the 900 FAS-type personnel nor that which State has with its FSRU and other special categories of people. We have not used those special categories in the past, and therefore those changes will not impact on our system. I would now like to read the portion of my statement that has to do with the Obey amendment, about which we testified before you earlier this year. "The proposed new Foreign Service Act would not conflict with the Obey amendment or the regulations that AID submitted to the Congress on May 1 of this year in response to section 401." This was the Obey provision. "Nor does this bill alter AID's com- mitment to the ' policy underlying section 401. Accordingly, AID, in filling Foreign Service-designated positions, will follow the regula- tions promulgated under that section 401. This means we will move to- ward a larger portion of our people in Washington being Foreign Service-related. In conclusion, AID supports the bill and believes it to be an excel- lent set of authorities to enable us to employ our Foreign Service per- sonnel in.ways which can best achieve the objectives of our administra- tion of the Foreign Assistance Act. With that, I will be glad to answer any uestions. [Mr. Nooter's prepared statement follows PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. NOOTER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOB INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committees : I am pleased to appear before these two subcommittees to testify in favor of the leg- islation proposed by the President, the Foreign Service Act of 1979. We at AID 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 personnel 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, AID utilizes the Foreign Service Act as the basic legislation governing its For- eign Service personnel. As one of the component agencies of IDCA, AID would be included within the coverage of the new law. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 We believe that the basic concepts of the Foreign Service as enunciated in the proposed new statute are entirely appropriate for AID. These include the basic rank-in-person concept that is essential to a mobile Foreign Service ; the commit- ment 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 AID, 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 agen- cies, 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 specialty training will continue to be offered by the Foreign Service Institute for per- sonnel of all foreign affairs agencies, and that State will continue to manage the Foreign Service retirement system for participants from all foreign 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 em- ployees 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 AID that there be maximum compatibility in the rules governing its Foreign Service and Civil Service employees. In testi- mony presented to the Civil Service Subcommittee on May 2, 1979, when I testi- fled on this Agency's regulations implementing the "Obey Amendment" (Section 401 of last year's AID authorization act), I said that these two groups of em- ployees are, in fact, interrelated and function-or should function-as a single unit. It was and is the Agency's intention, I testified, to encourage unified man- agement of the Agency's personnel and to facilitate the conversion of employees from the Civil Service to the Foreign Service. The proposed new Foreign Service Act would not conflict with the "Obey Amendment" or the regulations that AID submitted to the Congress on May 1 of this year in response to Section 401. Nor does this bill alter AID's commit- ment to the policy underlying Section 401. Accordingly, AID, in filling Foreign Service-designated positions, will follow the regulations promulgated under Sec- tion 401. In conclusion, AID 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. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Nooter, we welcome you, and let me again refer to my distinguished colleagues, who were here first, for questions. Congressman Fascell? Mr. FASCELL. T will pass right now. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I believe you heard a few moments ago my question to Ambassador Reinhardt pertaining to the time-in-class variations that could occur under this legislation, applying different regulations to the different agencies. I wonder if you would comment on that. Do you foresee a possibility for a bidding-up process? Mr. NooTER. We endorse the principal of a uniform statute covering the Foreign Service, but we think it is very important that there be the latitude for differences in time-in-class among agencies, just as within our own organization there would be different time-in-class Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 rules for different categories of people. We think there are variations in what is desirable in terms of the objectives of the different agencies because we possess different professional requirements, and hence, dif- ferent employment categories. We have not tried to define in detail what those links would be, but we do very much endorse the idea that there should be separate agency leeway in terms of making these determinations. Mr. BUCHANAN. Second, what have you done lately for spouses? Mr. NoOTER. We have done some things, but this is a relatively new problem and we do not have all the answers on it. First, we have tried to be extremely liberal in adjusting our normal rules about employer- employee, or supervisory, relationships between employees and wives who may be working in the same organization. Our General Counsel's office has been very good in trying to devise ways in which personnel evaluation reports can be made, for example, without conflict of interest. Second, we have encouraged our missions abroad to use whatever authorities they have, such as the personal services contracts, or per- sonnel slots that might otherwise be filled by assignment action from Washington, to be filled by spouses at post. We have worked with the other agencies, State and ICA, in trying to work out arrangements with them. Just the other day we agreed to provide our missions addi- tional leeway on the use of part-time slots so that these can be shifted between the foreign national and the U.S. categories for situations where spouses might be employed. We have taken these steps. I do not know that they are going to be adequate for the problem we are going to have over the next 10 years, but we are trying to move in that direction. Mr. BUCHANAN. I just have to say-I think that is true of you and the Department of State, and all agencies involved-that it is going to take some rather persistent encouragement, particularly in the mis- sions and various places. Mr. NooTER. I will say, certainly, the policy of the Agency in these past 2 years has been to encourage that. We know it is important to have the broadest possible opportunities of employing spouses in the future because if we do not, it is going to be a major inhibition to overseas assignments. Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you favor the mandatory retirement? Mr. NOOTER. Yes, I do. For the Foreign Service I think it has a use- ful function. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. SCHRCEDER. Thank you. Congressman Leach, any questions? Mr. LEACH. Let me ask-and with little bit of a preface-do you think that the AID workforce is appropriately balanced between overseas and home assignments? In asking this I am looking at the Appropriations Committee report of June 11 of this year which states : AID has had an excessive number of full time American employees based in Washington instead of overseas, where the agency's prime mission lies. The ma- jority of AID employees in the top policymaking positions has not had the over- seas experience necessary to understand the complex problems of development in the world's poorest countries, nor are these employees available for overseas duty, which would give them that experience. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 First, do you think you have about the right ratio today; and sec- ond, would you concur or dissent from the committee report? Mr. NOOTER. Well, first, if I could quote John Reinhardt, I think we are just about right. Quite seriously, in the last several years we have been working on these issues very intensely and have been examining them while trying to reduce overall levels, in Washington particularly. We are under pressure from many different directions. on personnel level issues. We are under pressure from parts of the Congress to put more people overseas and have less in Washington. We are under pres- sure to reduce our overseas positions in line with the general feeling that there are too many official Americans abroad. That is. a feeling that both the President and the Secretary have. Mr. LEACH. Excuse me, let me ask you, is that true of AID? There is some concern on what the President meant. Do you think his statement was applying to AID? Mr. NoOTER. I think his statement was applying to all U.S. Govern- ment agencies, including AID. Mr. LEACH. All agencies? Mr. NoOTER. That is my opinion. Mr. LEACH. There is some divergence of opinion on whether he meant all. Mr. NooTEi. I cannot speak for the President. Mr. LEACH. Neither can we in Congress. Mr. NOOTER. The application of the mode ceilings has applied to all agencies, and this is the instrument through which the President's policy direction has been carried out. It certainly has applied to us as well as others, as indeed it should. On the other hand, we have been under pressure to increase overseas, for example, to have more auditors abroad in the interest of maintain- ing the integrity of our fiscal system, program responsibilities, and so on. We are constantly beleaguered from a number of sides on these matters. I would say that we have reduced our Washington staff down about to the minimum size to permit us to carry on our responsibilities. We are trying to keep our field staffs down, but decreases will be at the sacrifice of programs-not necessarily in dollar terms, but in terms of the kinds of programs we will do. Decisions in that area really have to be made in regard to what it is we want to accomplish abroad. In other words, they are not only numerical decisions, they are also program- matic decisions. On the other hand, there is a limit as to how far we would want to go, even if we had carte blanche, in putting direct-hire Americans abroad. A lot of our work can be done through cooperation with the Peace Corps, with contractors, or with private voluntary agencies. The major outreach that we get in countries abroad is through those devices, rather than through our direct-hire staff which tends to be more managerial and programmatic. Mr. LEACH.. I want to follow up quickly on the contracting-out issue. Are you finding you are increasingly relying on contractors, and is it more so abroad than here or is it more so here than abroad? Mr. NOOTER. We do rely on contractors, but it is not such a new tendency. It is really a trend that started in 1968. Mr. LEACH. Do you feel it is increasing, decreasing, or holding stable ? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. NooTER. It is increasing and will continue to increase at least somewhat in the years ahead. Mr. LEACH. Is this in part as a response to personnel ceilings? Mr. NooTER. Yes. I also think it is a functional solution. It has other virtues aside from that one. But that certainly is one of them. Mr. LEACH. So, you are increasing contracting out because of the personnel ceiling. Mr. NOOTER. Yes. Mr. LEACH. Do you realize that is a violation of the law? Mr. NOOTER. It depends on the function that is involved. I do not think that it is in violation of the law in the cases where we have done it. Mr. LEACH. Section 311 of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 specifically stipulates that contracting out to get around the provisions of personnel ceilings is illegal. Mr. NooTER. Again, I would be happy to examine case-by-case in- stances where we contracted, and I think we can defend those cases. Mr. LEACH. Let me just ask one other question. Are there any specific provisions relating to AID which were ultimately left out of this package? Are there any recommendations that you made that were left out which you could discuss with us this morning? Mr. NooTER. No; I think the package is comprehensive. We were involved in the discussions and took part in the deliberations and helped to shape the final package. It does represent compromises be- tween different viewpoints, but that is the way any such arrangement would be expected to go. Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Pritchard. Mr. PRITCHARD. I noticed in your hiring of spouses, it seems to change or seems to vary quite a bit from one country to another, one post from another. Does that mean that you allow a lot of flexibility, or is it just that you are not able to have everybody follow the same guidelines? Mr. NOOTER When you run a worldwide system in which there is a great deal of delegation of authority to field posts around the world, there will be differences as to where available and qualified spouses may be used. Mr. PRITCHARD. Sure. Mr. NooTER. I have not heard feedback or complaints that certain posts were failing to carry out the guidelines. That may be the case, but it has not come to my attention. Mr. PRITCHARD. Well, of course, there is interpretation here, that has to go along. Mr. NoOTER. Right. Mr. PRITCHARD. This does seem to be a terribly important thing to officers overseas, the happiness of their family and the well-being of the economic structure of their family as to jobs. Mr. NooTER. At the same time, we do have an obligation to see that when those hiring choices are made, they are functional. Mr. PRITCHARD. Absolutely. Mr. NOOTER. We are not simply running a welfare operation, it does have to be for a functional purpose. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. PRITCHARD. That is right. But as a group, I find you have a lot of very talented wives overseas. Mrs. SCHROEDER Will the gentleman yield? Mr. PRITCHARD. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. How about husbands? Mr. PRrrcHARD. Well, I have not had the complaints from the hus- bands on that score. Mr. NooTER. Our new mission director in India happens to be a woman, and she will be accompanied by her husband who is at the moment, as I understand it, not employed. Mr. PRrrcHARD. In so many cases they are lawyers, and they do not seem to have much problem getting a job. [Laughter.] You are fairly satisfied, then, with this package? Mr. NooTER. Yes. Mr. PRrrcHARD. I have no further questions. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Fascell, have you thought of some questions? Mr. FASCELL. Oh, yes. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I knew you would not disappoint us. Mr. FASCELL. I just caught up with the statement. With respect to the response by the Agency to the Obey amendment and the fact that this proposed law before us would not in any way alter the Obey amendment, the publication of the recent regulations complying with the Obey amendment is in no way contradictory to the pending legis- lation. I think that is what you said in your statement, is that correct? Mr. NOOTER. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. I gather, therefore, that somebody-one of your "legal eagles"-has made a point-by-point comparison of the published regu- lations as against this proposed legislation. Is that correct? In other words, you have to have some basis for the statement you just made. Right? Mr. NoOTER. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. OK, to save us a lot of time, we would like to have a copy of that point-by-point comparison so we can see if your "legal eagle" is right. Mr. NoOTER. Let me have that submitted for the record. If it is not in the form that does exactly what you said, we will prepare it. Mr. FASCELL. OK because I read part of these regulations and if any- body can understand them, it is amazing. After positions are designated, as vacancies occur only Foreign Service employees will be allowed to fill Foreign Service-designated positions except if the number of non-Foreign Service incumbents is less than 10 percent, other than Foreign Service employees may fill up to 10 percent of the FS-designated positions. I guess it has a meaning, and that meaning is not contradictory to what is in this law. Mr. NooTER. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. Good, I will be glad to see that. [The information referred to follows:] COMPARISON OF THE OBEY REGULATIONS WITH THE PROPOSED FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1979 This memorandum compares the regulations submitted to Congress on May 1, 1979 under section 401 of the International Development and Food Assistance Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-424) (hereinafter the "Obey regulations") with the draft of the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 dated June 20, 1979 (herein- after the "bill"). We conclude that there are no conflicts between the provisions of the two. 1. Section 220.01 of the Obey regulations is a citation of the authorities pur- suant to which the regulations are promulgated. Those authorities are section 401 of Public Law 95-424 and section 625 of the Foreign Assistanct Act of 1961, as amended. Subsection (d) (2) of section 625 authorizes the Agency for Interna- tional Development (AID) to employ Foreign Service personnel pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. The bill would repeal both section 625(d) (2) and the Foreign Service Act of 1946. The bill would not repeal section 401 of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978, however. That section is full and sufficient authority for the promulgation of the Obey regulations. Furthermore, section 202 of the bill would replace the authority of section 625(d) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by authorizing the Director of the International Development Co- operation Agency (IDCA) to utilize the authorities of the Foreign Service Act. This new legislation would also be sufficient authority for the promulgation of regulations in terms identical with the Obey regulations. 2. Section 220.02 of the Obey regulations is a statement of purpose, i.e., to extend the Foreign Service personnel system to all employees of AID, both in the U.S. and abroad, who are responsible for planning and implementing AID's over- seas programs. The Obey regulations would not affect the provisions of existing law, or of section 531 of the bill, that requires Foreign Service personnel to be available for world-wide assignment. The regulations are therefore consistent with the bill in this respect. Furthermore, the statement of policy in the Obey regulations is supportive of the general objective of the bill (see section 101(b) ) to strengthen and improve the Foreign Service. 3. Section 220.03 of the Obey regulations defines "AID" and the "Administra- tor" of AID. These terms are not used in the bill. 4. Section 220.04 of the Obey regulations: Subsection (a) restates the author- ity to designate and classify positions as Foreign Service positions. This au- thority currently exists in section 441 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, and would continue to be available to the AID Administrator (through the Director of IDCA) by means of section 501 of the bill. Subsection (b) requires designation of each position in AID and provides the criteria for the choice of designation between General Schedule (GS) and For- eign Service (FS) positions. The bill is silent on the criteria for position desig- nation, and there is, therefore, no inconsistency between the Obey criteria and any provision of the bill. In fact, even if there were no Obey regulations, the authority of section 501 of the bill is sufficiently broad to permit the Director of IDCA or the Administrator of AID in the exercise of administrative discretion to designate positions according to the criteria specified in the Obey regulations. Subsection (c) provides that positions designated as Foreign Service positions in accordance with subsection (b) may be occupied (after the current incumbent leaves the job) only by Foreign Service employees, except that 10 percent of the Foreign Service designated positions may be filled by other than Foreign Serv- ice employees. The comparable section of the bill, section 511(b), does not in- clude this requirement. Instead, it provides only that Foreign Service positions will "normally" be filled by members of the Foreign Service. Again, though, the provision of the bill is broad enough to allow a more specific and stringent requirement to be followed in the exercise of administrative discretion. Under 511(b) AID could do by implementitng regulations what the Obey regulations require. Subsection (d) provides that Foreign Service employees on rotation assignment to Washington may serve in GS-designated positions as well as FS-designated positions. The bill also allows this by means of section 521. Subsection (e) provides that GS employees of AID will be encouraged to con- vert to the Foreign Service, so long as they are willing and qualified to meet all criteria for service in the Foreign Service, including world-wide availability. This subsection is entirely consistent with the requirements of the bill (sections 2101 and 2102) with regard to conversions into the Foreign Service. 5. Section 221.01 of the Obey regulations extends the limitations on initial assignments in the U.S. from two to three years. The two year limitation exists in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 section 625(d) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act, which would be repealed by the bill. Since the bill normally allows up to eight years for tours in the U.S. (section 531), a three-year rule is well within the limits established by the bill. 6. Section 221.02 of the Obey regulations restates the authority of the Adminis- trator to provide tours of duty in the United States and to provide for rotation of assignments subject to section 933 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. The citation to section 933 will be made out of date by the bill, but the bill has a savings clause (section 2402) which automatically updates such references. Section 531 of the bill also allows tours of duty in the U.S., with a maximum of eight years for the length of the tour in normal circumstances. The Obey regula- tions specify no maximum length of rotational tour in the U.S., but the bill's eight-year rule of thumb is consistent with the administrative practices AID could be expected to follow regardless of legislative requirements. Section 511 also provides for the transfer of employees between assignments in a way completely consistent with section 221.02 of the Obey regulations. 7. Section 221.01 of the Obey regulations provides a savings clause for existing regulations and authority to promulgate implementing regulations. Sections 2402 and 201, respectively, of the bill provide for the same things. 8. Section 222.02 of the Obey regulations provides a severability clause with respect to the construction and interpretation of the regulations. Section 2401 of the bill has the same kind of provision. 9. Section 222.03 of the Obey regulations provides for an effective date of Octo- ber 1, 1979. Since there is no inconsistency in substance between the Obey regula- tions and the bill, the bill's later effective date (January 1, 1980 according to sec- tion 2404) will not affect the implementation of the Obey regulations. Mr. FASCELL. Now, how many people do you have now in the agency? Mr. NOOTER. We have about 3,600 full-time, direct-hire American employees and about 2,000 local, foreign national employees. Mr. FASCELL. 3,600 and 2,000, is that the number? Mr. NOOTER. Correct. Mr. FASCELL. The total is 5,600. Mr. NoOTER. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Now, how many in the United States and how many verseas? Mr. NooTER. About 2,100 in the United States and about 1,500 over- seas. Mr. FASCELL. 2,100 in Washington, 1,500 overseas, that is American personnel. The other 2,000 are all overseas. Mr. NOOTER. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Now, the Agency's high point in terms of employ- ent of people was in what year ? Mr. NoOTER. I believe it would have been 1968. Mr. FASCELL. What was the employment at that time? Mr. NooTER. About 17,000. Mr. FASCELL. In 1968. So, in 10 years in other words h y and attrition, you are down to 3,600 people. y Mr. NOOTER. 5,600, including foreign nationals. Mr. FASCELL. You count them all, I see. So in 10 years you have had one-third reduction. Mr. NooTER. A two-thirds reduction. and we are. down to .ahn?+ Mr. FASCELL. I mean a two-thirds reduction. Mr. NoOTER. Right. Mr. FASCELL. And that was managed what, in three basic RIF's era period of years? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 80 Mr. NooTER. It was mainly managed through attrition. The RIF's accomplished some portion of it. There were three RIF's of U.S. per- sonnel; there were individual terminations in missions of foreign national employees; the balance was through attrition. Mr. FASCELL. I see. What is the present planning with respect to the Agency, personnelwise? Is it simply attrition for reduction; holding the line ; increases? Mr. NooTER. Our present understanding with OMB is that we are essentially on a plateau. In other words, our personnel ceiling of 5,760 has been roughly the same for the last 2 years, and we expect it to be the same out into the next couple of years. Mr. FASCELL. Now, the proposed reorganization of IDCA, does that change matters? I guess all of you have looked at that in terms of both complying with the Obey amendment and this new law. Mr. NooTER. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. There is no change, or there is a change? Mr. NooTER. It would have some impact on the way the authorities are delegated. Where now AID's authorities come through the Sec- retary of State, under the new arrangement the authorities would go through the Director of IDCA to the AID Administrator. Mr. FASCELL. Do you have an analysis of that? Mr. NooTER. We could submit something for the record that would clarify it. Mr. FASCELL. Would you be kind enough to do that, so we have a clear understanding of the relationship of AID and IDCA as it applies to personnel and so forth? Mr. NooTER. We will. [The information ,referred to follows:] PERSONNEL AUTHORITIES FOB IDCA AND AID At the present time, the Agency for International Development (AID) is an agency within the Department of State. Its authority to employ Foreign Serv- ice personnel and use the authorities of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 comes from section 625(d) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. In E.O. 10973, the President delegated the authority of section 625(d) (2) to the Secretary of State and in State Department Delegation No. 104, the Secretary of State redelegated such authority (with certain exceptions) to the Administra- tor of AID. Under Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1979, the International Development Co- operation Agency (IDCA) will be created as an independent agency with several component agencies, including AID. Concurrent with the establishment of IDCA, E.O. 10973 will be superseded by a new Executive Order delegating' most of the Foreign Assistance Act functions to the Director of IDCA. If the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 is not enacted, section 625(d) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act will remain the basic authority of the foreign as- sistance agencies to employ Foreign Service personnel. It is expected that this authority will be delegated by the new Executive Order to the Director of IDCA, to he exercised in consultation with the Secretary of State. The Director of IDCA, in turn, will redelegate the authority to the Administrator of AID. If the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 is enacted, section 625(d) (2) of the Foreign Assistance Act will be repealed and section 202 of the new law will give the Director of IDCA direct authority to use the authorities of the Foreign Service Act without the need of a delegation by Executive Order. Under section 201 of the proposed law, the Director of IDCA will be able to delegate his per- sonnel authorities to the Administrator of AID. The regulations submitted to Congress in response to section 401 of Public Law 95-424 (the Obey regulations) will be applicable to AID whether it is under Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 IDCA or under the State Department and whether or not the proposed Foreign Service legislation is enacted. The Obey regulations are not applicable to any other agency of the U.S. Government. Mrs. SCIROEDER. I have several questions about the implementation of the Obey regulations and how they are going. Have you designated many of the positions yet? Mr. NooTER. We are working on it. The designation is supposed to be carried out October 1, and staff work is going on leading to those decisions. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Are you consulting with the unions as you go through this? Mr. NooTER. Let me ask Mr. Parsons because he is working with them. STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. PARSONS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, AID Mr. PARSONS. We have just finished a pilot study establishing cri- teria for designating positions. This is completed and we are just now setting up meeings, our first meeting, with the bargaining units to discuss this and to continue our discussion with the bargaining units as we go along designating the positions; all of which will be com- pleted by October 1. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have some questions following up Congressman Leach's question about how many people were in the United States versus how many people were abroad, I think, you said you had the Washington staff down to about as tight a group as you could have, and you did not think you had too many abroad. Yet, I look at that 2,100 versus 1,500. It is an interesting phenome- non. What do you figure it takes in Washington for every person in the field? Mr. NoOTER. First, there are a number of functions in Washington that can only be carried out in Washington. Therefore, the ratio that you are talking about would only refer to what you would call "sup- port people" in regard to "field people." I do not know exactly what part of our staff would be, but it would be a fairly small part of the Washington staff. It would be the administrative backup, managerial backup, and so on. But a large part of the Washington operation is simply carrying out functions which are required to be done here more or less irrespec- tive of the number in the field. This operation might have some rela- tionship to the overall size of the program, but it is not composed simply of support positions for field operations. Mrs. SCHROEDER. You mean they are just almost departmental posi- tions, such as running your personnel department? Mr. NOOTER. Yes. Some portion of the personnel office would of course relate to the number of people in the field. I was thinking more along the lines of our research activities. For example, if the Con- gress indicated it would like us to work on energy programs, to start those programs we need to do a certain amount of work in Washing- ton to analyze the problems, find out what technologies are available and appropriate, and begin to create the information base before ac- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 tivities could start on in the field. There are other activities having to do with the Congress that have to be done here. There are certain worldwide programing activities. There is a certain amount of finan- cial management backup, such as running our payrolls, accounting, financial systems which would not make any sense to have individual missions perform these functions because they are much more efficient to do here. All of these things tend to dictate the solution. We have already pressed on this. We have lowered the Washington number from about 2,300 to 2,100 in the last 2 years. We were under great pressure to do so. We would have liked to go lower, and indeed we set our planning target much lower originally. We simply found, however, that on a functional position-by-position review it either did not make sense to move the position overseas or abolish it, or that such action could not be accomplished without serious inhibitions to Agency functions. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So, you find that a bare minimum? Mr. NOOTER. I do. Mrs. SCHROEDER. This bill that we have in front of us, that we are talking about today, mandates mandatory conversion of "domestic only" Foreign Service personnel to civil service. As I recall, you had rejected such an involuntary conversion of your personnel before. Why have you changed your position? Mr. NooTER. There is no mandatory conversion involved for AID in this proposal. We do not have people in that category as ICA does. I am really not familiar with the nature of those problems or the difficulties they have. I heard, of course, Mr. Reinhardt's testimony today. Mrs. SCHROEDER. You escaped. Mr. NooTER. We escaped. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, that is a good reason not to take a position. I assume AID does have a "whistle blower" provision. Mr. NooTER. Yes; as provided in the general Civil Service Act. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What has been your experience with the selection out for substandard performance in AID? Mr. NoorER. We used selection out until about 8 years ago. We dropped it at that time, as the Departntent of State did. They recently reinstituted it in the last year or two, although we have not. There are certain legal inhibitions to selection out as it used to be practiced, which State believes they have resolved. We are looking at the current selection-out guidelines we have in our regulations, but we have not reinstituted it. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will you reinstitute it when this bill is passed? Mr. NooTER. I expect that we will, but it is a provision that each agency will have the option to review and consider implementing, de- pending on its appropriateness for its particular service. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Do you feel this bill at all strengthens the Secre- tary of State and thereby reduces the autonomy of AID? Mr. NooTER. No; our understanding is that each agency would be able to adapt the statute to its own requirements similar to what is done now. The statute is drawn somewhat more narrowly, but the restrictions would come from the statute, not from the role of the Secretary. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have a lot more questions, but I think I am going to submit them for the record in the interest of time, and the fact that we are in session. Mr. Pritchard, do you have further questions? Mr. PRITCHARD. No questions. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank you very much for appearing this morning. We appreciate your insights into this, and it certainly will be an exciting summer to work through this bill. Thank you. Mr. NooTER. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 11 a.m. the subcommittees adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT MONDAY, JULY 9, 1979 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, AND COMMrrPEE ON POST' OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittees met at 2 p.m. in room 2127, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patricia Schroeder (chairwoman of the Sub- committee on Civil Service) presiding. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Today we hear from employee organizations rep- resenting Federal employees in the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and the International Communication Agency. The drafters of this legislation have consulted with the Amerioan Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association. Consequently, some of the more abrasive proposals have been ,moothed down. Still, profound and serious disagreements remain on ;ertain elements of the bill. I am committed to strong labor-management relations in the Fed- 3ral Government. I believe that Government is more productive, more ,fficient, and more humane if workers believe that they have a signifi- ant role in shaping their own working environment. Hence, I do not ,hink that Congress should override lightly the wishes of employees n its consideration of this legislation. Our first witness is Mr. Stephen Koczak of the American Federa- ;ion of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. We welcome you and we will be delighted to hear what you say. Would you introduce the people accompanying you and maybe you vuld like to summarize your statement and we will put it in the record in toto. STATEMENT OF STEPHEN KOCZAK, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Mr. KOCZAK. Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Blaylock, whose testimony this is, asked me to convey his apologies for his ab- nce today. He had to change his agenda unexpectedly and he has sked me to obtain your permission to make. a statement on his be- alf, if that is agreeable to you. Before proceeding, I should like to troduce the persons who would have been accompanying him, who Vre here today with me. They are Mr. Henry Cope from local 1534 (85) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 86 at the State Department, the Agency for International Develop- ment, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation ; Mr. Sig Moody, Vice President of the same local, also to my immediate left. To my immediate right Mr. Abe Harris, president of local 1812 at the International Communication Agency and at the extreme left, Ms. Mary Jacksteit, staff counsel for that local. I do appreciate your invitation to have our statement put completely into the record. I think it runs to something like 110 pages and we will try to summarize the salient portions of it. Perhaps the easiest would be to recite the table of contents, because we will try to skip some elements, to place emphasis on those portions which the Gov- ernment witnesses, the administration witnesses have overlooked. That might be one way we can focus on those matters at dispute. The table of contents basically, goes to the subject of decline of the foreign affairs agencies in foreign policy formulation; the very impor- tant subject of labor management relations; the issue of the Senior Foreign Service, pay comparability, specific proposals on retirement and selection-out; and a series of special problems primarily at Inter- national Communication Agency. Most important of these ICA prob- lems is the foreign affairs specialist program about which there is a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of those administration witnesses who do not represent ICA management. Then we would like to discuss the autonomy of the U.S. Interna- tional Communication Agency and what we say about its role applies equally to the Agency for International Development. The Voice of America, we believe, needs some attention as well in this legislation-its broadcasting missions and personnel policies, fringe benefits for its employees (especially those serving with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), and retirement equity for a few people who had served as binational center employees for what was then the U.S. Information Agency. Then we discuss the subject of spouses over- seas, ICA and AID, and how they do not receive the same considera- tion in posts abroad as spouses of the Department of State employees overseas. We have introduced the special problems of the Agency for Inter- national Development, particularly problems which have arisen under the so-called Obey amendment which gives us a great deal of con- cern because the Obey amendment's purpose ostensibly was 'to see to it that more people went abroad. It is not achieving that purpose because of the ceiling placed by the Secretary of State on AID person nel who can be assigned abroad and not a single additional position will be established abroad. All this amendment in effect unintention- ally does is create the equivalent of domestic-Foreign Service at home because the only positions that are going to be identified and seques- tered will be those at home. At the present time at the Agency for International Developmen all positions are available for being encumbered by anybody. The mos qualified person, Foreign Service or civil service, can get that posi tion. Under the new regulations they will be segregated and if you ar in a Foreign Service you are able to get it automatically without meri competition. In effect it exempts, these positions for affirmative actin statutes and from upward mobility programs. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 We think it sets up unnecessarily a caste system which does not exist at the Agency for International Development today while failing to achieve its primary purpose, which is to get people abroad. That is the peculiar irony of this whole situation. We hope you could address that ironic anomaly because it does touch on the whole subject of the limited role of the Department of State in its relation to the other Federal departments (such as Agriculture and Commerce) that want to send people abroad and are are able to do so while and in fact ICA and AID are unable to send their own professionals abroad under ceilings set by the Secretary of State. With that, I would like to proceed to a more systematic summary of our statement emphasizing those issues which are in dispute and about which we think there has been considerable misunderstanding. Mr. FASCELL. That list you just read, is that a summary of the points you intend to cover now? Mr. KOCZAK. No, of the basic document. Mr. FASCELL. So that summary of agenda that you read covers what is in this statement. Mr. KOCZAK. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. I wanted to be sure. Mr. KoczAK. We are in fundamental disagreement with the proposed legislation to amend the Foreign Service Act, which we believe is inadequate and regressive. Legislation to reform the foreign service system should be address- ing fundamental problems which concern those interested in the for- eign policy of the United States. These problems are due in part to institutional fragmentation of our foreign policy and of our presence abroad. The traditional foreign affairs agencies, Department of State. AID, and ICA collectively represent less than one in three persons serving overseas. They are threatened with even greater encroachments from the Departments of Agriculture. Commerce. Energy. and the Treasury, in addition to the burden of their continuing task to accommodate personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. We petition your two committees to assess and to increase the strengths of the traditional foreign affairs agencies to meet the chal- lenges to U.S. prestige abroad and the international crises which will arise in the future. Unless the present trend to fragmentation is re- versed, our moral and political national leadership, we fear, will falter worldwide. It is from this most universal and fundamental point of view that we offer our comments today. Any reforms undertaken should serve as a model for the operation 7f all programs involving American Government employees abroad. ost of all, any reform should preserve the essential safeguards which ave been accorded to the Foreign Service after years of struggle and ragedy and serve to increase, rather than diminish, the ability of mployees and management to work harmoniously with collegiality nd without confrontation. In addition, legislation can and should address the issue raised by he Director of USICA of the growing reluctance of Foreign Service mployees to serve abroad, due to the financial burden, the increased Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 dangers from-terrorism, and the growing dilemma posed by the em- It is in an attempt to respond to these problems that we propose, in to insure true comparability of pay not only by a pensation-first , realistic linkage of civil service and Foreign Service scales, but also for worldwide duty with a $2,000 minimum and $5,000 maximum; and, Government employees in hazardous and stressful occupations such as air traffic controllers, by increasing the computation to 2.5 percent It is also in this spirit that we oppos chapter 10 of the legislation and request inclusion of Foreign Service employees under the labor- management provisions of title V while retaining existing bargaining the -- - u And, finally, it is out of this concern for increasing the effective- - - - --a-- tion that we criticize the proposed Senior Foreign Service as sacrific- ing minimal employee protections for alleged management flexibility without regard to the obvious and serious implications of arbitrari- ness and partisan politicization as it is perceived very clearly by the We should like to call to your attention that the administration pro- posed precisely this very same formula for the civil service senior a better formula which is now law. We invoke the same congressiona With specific regard to the Agency for International Development, ostensible compliance with the so-called Obey amendment, are illega and mischievous. We object to the "caste" system which they are de signed to achieve. We are attaching to our testimony on this subjec our complete statement before the House Subcommittee on Civi Service of May 2, 1979. There are many more specific and important issues raised by th proposed legislation which we have dealt with in some length in ou testimony. In the interest of time, we will not review them now bu However, there is one issue which requires some discussion becaus relative to it. I refer to the issue of the domestic Foreign Service em by a negotiated agreement between that Agency and our local 1812 ' Initially, we would like to reiterate that AFGE energetically op posed the so-called foreign affairs specialist program which wa designed by the Department of State to bring domestic based employ ees, in fact all Agency employees above the GS-7 level, into the For We sued, unsuccessfully, to block its institution gaining only a de lay in implementation. When the preliminary injunction was lifted b the court and the Agency, then USIA, proceeded again to impleme Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 the program, many, if not most, of the civil service employees joined FAS. This is because it was made clear that in no other way would further advancement or promotion be possible. According to the rules estab- lished by the Agency, these employees after 3 years became partici- pants in the Foreign Service retirement and disability system. Within a brief time, the weaknesses of the program became appar- ent, even to management. A new administration in USIA finally pro- posed that the program be brought to an end. Local 1812 heartily agreed and together union and management negotiated a way to phase out the program in a manner preserving the rights of all parties : First, the Agency stopped hiring FAS employees and agreed to bring all new domestic employees into the civil service. Second, selection boards ceased to decide promotions and FAS employees were brought under a new merit promotion plan incorporating civil service principles and applying to all domestic employees. Third, FAS employees were of- fered the opportunity to convert back to civil service by a transfer to he civil service retirement system. With regard to voluntary con- ersion, the Agency wanted a cutoff date for employees to make their ecision and the union agreed to make that date June 30, 1981. With regard to other elements of the agreement-the voluntary ature of conversion, the merit promotion procedures, et cetera- hese the parties intended to continue beyond June 1981 unless other erms were agreed to. Since the date of this agreement, many employees have converted o the civil service and, by this means, and through attrition, the num- er of FAS employees has begun to decrease. It was in the midst of this rocess that we received the State Department proposal to force onversion to the civil service of not only its employees but those t USICA as well. We objected and still object to this effort to cancel a negotiated greement by legislation-an agreement based on the good faith judg- ents of both the union and management that a voluntary conversion 6ystem is likely to do the least amount of violence to both the rights nd sensibilities of a group of employees who are wearied by a suc- ession of personnel experiments undertaken at their expense and ever in their interests. I would be pleased at this stage, in the interest of time, if you ould like to address your questions to us-,alternatively, we could roceed to the section on the labor-management relations which we elieve could best be served, in the interest of all parties, by having 11 members of the Foreign Service come under title VII of the Civil ervice Reform Act of 1978. (Mr. Blaylock's prepared statement, presented by Stephen Koczak, ollows :] TATEMENT OF KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERA- TION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, PRESENTED BY STEPHEN KOCZAK Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the House For- ign Affairs and House Post Office and Civil Service Committees, I am most -ratified to have this opportunity to testify on matters affecting the personnel of he foreign service and the civil service of the United States. I believe it is an uspicious occasion that both committees of the House of Representatives are blued in this enterprise. Under these conditions, the dreadful segregation of these ervices may begin to be eliminated and the needs of the United States and of its ersonnel seen from a larger perspective. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 90 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 Development and some civil service employees in the Department of State. We have a separate Council of Foreign Affairs Employees to coordinate our representation at these so-called Foreign Affairs agencies. In addition, we have an entire District, the Fifteenth,' within ments, 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 and reactionary. They incorporate time-worn procedures for promoting, selecting do not oppose reform and change. But we believe that this bill should, as the Civil Service Reform Act did, seek a balance between management flexibility and pro- tection of merit principles and employee rights. The bill in its present form does I earnestly beseech you, with the expertise you have available to this joint undertaking of two Committees, to consider the rare opportunity you have to draft Foreign Service legislation. The Foreign Service Act has not been re-written since THE DECLINE OF THE "FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES" present ambitions of such other Federal agencies as the Department of Com merce and the Department of Agriculture, which wish to operate abroad with I submit to you that this is the prospect which you should bear in mind whe drafting new legislation for the foreign service. The Department bill is length Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS It is evident that the foreign service should be placed under the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. 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 pro- gram, 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. The Foreign Service was originally excluded from the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Bill, in part because of the alleged jurisdiction problems between the Post Office and Civil Service and Foreign Affairs Com- mittees. Such problems do not confront us today because these committees have agreed to hold joint hearings. Further as seen with the implementing legislation for the Panama Canal Treaties, where coverage of Title VII was extended to employees of the Panama Canal 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 language under exclusions : "(iv) an officer or employee in the Foreign Service of the United States em- ployed 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 proceed. 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 concerns 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 appropriate 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 personnel. 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 anony- mous action that even the most senior foreign service officers and personnel need the protections of the world wide unit in which all foreign service per- sonnel are members. The Congress no doubt has in mind the protection of the clerical and tech- nical 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 super- visor 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 over- seas, create a collegiality 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 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 92. 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 Authority. For the reasons we have given and the weaknesses which we per- ceive, 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 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 irresistible when all public members of the interim board resigned in 1974 after AID refused to abide by a Board decision. In 1975 Con- gress 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 mem- bers of the Service. The Foreign Service Grievance Board consists of prestigious 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 Board-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 addition made in section 1024 to the Board's jurisdiction of union grievances concerning 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 bar- gaining 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 free- dom 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 1103 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 forign affairs agencies shall be granted reasonable periods of administrative leave to prepare, be present Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 and to present the grievance. Where the grievant is not represented by the exclusive 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. The 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 sub- section (b) a new paragraph (5) stating, "to promote an employee who is found to have previously failed to receive proper consideration. Promotion may be retrocative 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 opportunity to create this executive corps was obviously a major incentive for developing 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 detri- ment 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 officers there is overwhelming concern with the possibility that the SFS as now designed will permit wholesale politicization of the Foreign Serv- ice and discourage discussion, dissent and professional development. This con- cern 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 intentions, 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 with- out 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 extenson. 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 neutral 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 disincentive for achievement for the employee is as obvious as the dis- advantage 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 remain- ing, 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 section 641 as follows: Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 "(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 re- turn 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 rules for class I. 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 re- tention 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 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 es- tablished 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 purpose of this provision are not immediately clear, but the provision appears to conflict with the merit principles incorporated into the bill. Under merit principles, employees are to be retained on the basis of the adequacy of their performance. When agency managements determine the num- ber of promotoin opportunities and selections into the SFS, they will surely consider this factor without 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 him- self 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. * * * Today, the number of officers at the class 1-3 levels and the number of jobs classified at those ranks are at parity and the historic imbalance has been resolved. I'm convinced, therefore, that current legislative authority and internal adminis- trative practices are sufficient to deal with any potential future problems of senior officer impartment." 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 weaknesses 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. Consequent- ly, 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 ray for civil service employees by proper "linkwge" 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 disrurtionc in their assignments, to the stresses in their personal and family lives. For this reason, we propose that foreign service Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 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. "',Vhe 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 be- cause 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 lower grades are adequately compensated and that personnel in the higher grades, particularly in the Foreign Senior Exceutive Service, if it is established, do not benefit disproportionately from other members of the Foreign Service. 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 In- vestigation, other law enforcement groups, firefighters and air traffic control- lers and employees of the Alaska Railroad. In fact, for most of them, man- datory retirement 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 Manda- tory Separation and Immediate Retirement. But there are two major differ- ences. First, these persons can continue to stay in the civil service in other functions Lesides their original specialties. Second, their annuities are com- puted, 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 con- tribute 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 21/2 percent ; remainder at 2 percent, with voluntary retirement at any age after five years service abroad. 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 testimony by Administration spokesmen concerns the so-called Foreign Af- fairs Specialist category, a term of art for "domestic foreign service" person- nel. Among the other problems are such matters as employment rights at the Voice of America, retirement credit for former Radio Free Europe/Radio Lib- erty personnel and for retired Bi National Grantees, and the employment of spouses of ICA personnel abroad. None of the Administration spokesmen have informed you that our union was admantly 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 category had first to serve three years as Foreign Service Reserve Officers 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 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 96 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 service 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 person- nel 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 Specialist 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 personnel 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 foreign 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 reaffirmation 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 other- wise, 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. To our Local 1812, 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 residential force of domestic 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 prerequisites. 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, 1981. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 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 management 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 specific measures would take within the general format already adopted by the Depart- ment. We found very persuasive the arguments made by Director Reinhardt 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 seri- ously depart from its proposals. Thus, the record should be clear that this legis- lation 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 a least can be lived with. That effort has only been minimally successful. We agree that improvements have been made, par- ticularly in the area of returning to each agency head the authority to make specific provisions with regard to such things as length of the SFS 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 concerned with provisions in the bill that suggest a different intention, specifically the requirement that the foreign affairs agencies achieve "maximum compatibility". We agree that a degree of compati- bility 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 manage- ment 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 USICA in personnel matters is assured and the agency is freed from the necessity of accommodating the special per- sonnel and political problems current in the Department of State. The issue of the integrity of the news, educational and cultural programs of USICA was a major concern of Congressman Fascell's Subcommittee in discus- sions on the reorganization plan which established USICA. We hope that this 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" modify- ing 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 author- ity to the Director General over the personnel system of USICA. In addition we request amendment of section 441(d) to provide that the determination of nom- inations for performance pay for meritorious or distingiushed service be made separately within each agency, not by an interagency board whose recommenda- tions will ultimately be reviewed by the Secretary. The Director of USICA should be able to submit nominations to the President, or if considered appropriate, 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, inter- agency SFS, a creation we would strongly oppose since it would undermine not only the autonomy of the agency, but also of the separate FSIO corps. A. Broadcasting mission The Voice of America continues to be beset with certain failure, some resulting from its basic philosophy of international communication, others from its treat- ment of personnel. In a sense, these are interrelated. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 98 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, 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, during this entire period. An analogous situation appears to exist in the broad- casts to Yugoslavia-these are in "Serbo-Croat", angering the indigenous Croatian population of more than six million who wish to have broadcasts in "Croatian" while retaining broadcasts in Serbian to the Serb population in Yugoslavia. 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 assumption 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. We have even heard that part of the anti-American attitude of many Iranians was that our policies toward Iran itself were never understood, simply because there was no way most Iranians could hear our own version of events, either in the newscasts or in the "VOA Commentaries" to which I referred under the heading of VOA Achievements. I submit to your consideration the advisability of Congress raising with the Administration, as an oversight function, the introduction of a policy of broad- casting to our "friends", while they are still "friends" and not merely broad- casting to areas 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 prop- aganda 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. The problem which this is supposed to solve is the underclassification of alien VOA broadcasters who are performing at the same level as other broadcasters but who cannot receive a grade higher than GS-11. This is the highest grade for an alien "translator" into a "colloquial" language under current practices. Whereas the Agency can claim that it has been inhibited in giving higher grades to alien employees because of the insistence of the Civil Service Com- mission that-as aliens-they cannot be graded higher than GS-11, even though the broadcasters are writing, not merely translating the script, the Agency has been derelict in the classification of American national foreign language broad- casters. The English language broadcasters are normally classified on the basis of the general civil service standards. Many are at GS-12 and can aspire to reach even GS-14 level. Yet, the foreign language broadcasters who are often just as important to the purposes of the VOA mission as the English language broad- casters do not receive the same classifications. This situation has led to morale problems among foreign language broad- casters-citizen and alien-who, for example, believe they are being denied the basic constitutional right of equal pay for equal work. AFGE has discussed this continuing inequity with a succession of VOA administrations since 1968, who have shown a surprising lack of concern, considering VOA's reliance on these broadcasters to reach the vast majority of its overseas audience. 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. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 This year we raised the issue again in connection with 1980-1981 USICA authorization bill, but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concluded that it preferred to consider 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 seeking to make covert what has, since then, had to be made overt. A second reason for bringing this issue of equity is that it will cost less than the Administration and Congress are willing to pay in retirement credits for future employees of the "fictive" but overt Institute. Certainly, in principle, there is not much to differentiate these "fictions" in law designed to achieve certain diplomatic goals, made necessary by diplomatic fictions. The number of these RFE/RL employees who are still alive are 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 having 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 interest 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 retire- ment 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 Fed- eral Government in the late 1940s and early 1950s-and still funded today by the Federal Government under Congressional authorizations and appropria- tions. All formerly served with either the American Forces Network, Europe; Radio Free Europe ; or Radio Liberty (one former employee of RL also served at Radio Free Asia). As you know, the American Forces Network is operated worldwide by the Department of Defense. Employees of the Network in Asia were paid by the Department 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-Ap- propriated Funds. In these circumstances they were not considered to be Fed- eral employees, and were deprived of Civil Service retirement credit. We be- lieve 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 Govern- ment 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, to per- petuate 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 (broadcasts 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 di- rected 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 posi- tion in comparison to others serving the Federal Government. In fact, the union Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 initiative which eventually led to establishment of a retirement system began in 1957 with a concerted-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). for example, set salary In 1957 the first union contract at Radio Free Europe, scales and provided for a 15 percent 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, and 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 $113 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 suggested 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 employment 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 employees 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 vesting 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 Federal agencies as the ICA, the Trust Territories of the Pacific, the Board for Interna- tional 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 under any other retirement system if used for credit under the Federal retirement 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 floodgates to a deluge of demands on the Federal retirement system by great numbers of persons formerly associated in one way or another with CIA clandestine opera- tions, 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 viewpoint suggests. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 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 parties. 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 of any possible special benefits that might accompany 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 major- ity, 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 specifi- cally 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 nt 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 section 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 Na- tional Committee 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, In- corporated, Radio Free Asia, the Asia Foundation, the American Forces Network, Europe, or any part thereof, if such service is not credited for bene- fits under any other retirement system."; and (4) by inserting between the second and third sentences immediately fol- lowing paragraph (1), as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection, the fol- lowing : "The Office of Personnel Management shall accept the certification of the Executive Director of the Board for International Broadcasting concern- ing service for the purpose of this subchapter of the type described in para- graph (10).". (b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall apply only with respect to an em- ployee, as defined in section 8311 (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 Guarantee 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 Re- tirement Fund and has been unsympathetic to the needs of USIA (now ICA) em- ployees. Even though USIA management agreed that these employees were en- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 titled 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 #1178-72) that Binational Center grantees met all the criteria of Federal government employ- ment and were entitled to credit under the Federal retirement system. The court order read as follows : U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia CIVIL ACTION 1178-72 WAYNE W. TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF ROBERT HAMPTON, ET AL., DEFENDANT ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plain- tiff'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 in- volved 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 Foreign Service and their annui- ties 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 rul- ing to their prejudice despite the obvious fact, now conceded 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 "career" employment 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 recog- nized, 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 make an appropriate contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disabil- ity 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 posts abroad, manage to get much better positions much faster than the spouses of Foreign Service Information Officers. Our complaint here appears Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 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 Interna- tional Development. SPECIAL PROBLEMS AT THE AGENCY FOB INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT The most immediate problem at the Agency for International Development relates to the developments initiated by the so-called Obey Amendment. Spe- cifically, they relate to the "Regulations" submitted to the Congress on May 1, 1979. As we indicated in our testimony of May 2, 1979, before the House Subcom- mittee on the Civil Service we consider the Regulations both illegal and mis- chievous. Rather than repeating the arguments which we employed there, we should like your permission to attach them as Annex III to this statement and to summarize some but expatiate on those issues which treat with equity, par- ticularly for women, minorities and all other persons now in the clerical or technical positions who are qualified to assume professional and administratve roles when opportunities arise. THE MISCHIEF OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS Mr. Nooter, the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Devel- opment, 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 pur- pose of the so-called Obey Amendment. Consequently, the Regulations fail to achieve the very purpose for which they were intended by Representative Obey. That in itself is mischievous behaviour-pretending to be able to achieve some- thing which will not be possible. The second mischief is worse. Up till now, the Agency for International De- velopment 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 exclusive right to certain so-called "prestige" jobs in Washington. Unlike the Department of State and the International Communication Agency, AID had formerly as- signed 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. The advantage of retaining such a system for the future is even more important than it was in the past. As more and more younger women, particularly persons of black (African) and Hispanic background, have become educated in foreign policy matters, they discovered that they still had to enter at the clerical and technical level but at least they could aspire to professional and administrative functions. The past system could have facilitated 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 would be designated as foreign service and thereby be segregated, and only persons who served abroad would he entitled to fill them. This places a premium on, and gives an inordinate ad- vantage 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, would know that certain prestige positions were automatically restricted to him and other white males in the AID foreign service. even in areas not related to his own experience. The most educated married black woman, in the General Schedule, who had a graduate degree in West African affairs and who is much more qualified than anyone else in AID, would have difficulty in Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 obtaining an assignment, for example, on the Ghana desk, because that position had 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 will lead 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. We oppose these regulations as being mischievous; we oppose them because we think they are illegal and are not in compliance with several Constitutional and statutory requirements. I shall not repeat those arguments since they appear in our statement of May 2, 1979 which we requested to introduce into the Record as an annex. CONCLUDING REMARKS I should like to reiterate our most sincere appreciation for your invitation to testify before this joint hearing of your Committees 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 opportunity to stress that good foreign policy deci- sions depend not only on good personnel but on proper institutional structures. 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 agencies, AID, ICA and the State Department. Equally important is the need to assure that the new foreign service legisla- tion you are considering at this time not only improves the operations of AID, ICA and the State Department but makes possible your other attempts to co- ordinate these operations with those of the government as a whole in Washington, D.C. Largely for this reason, I have urged that all those aspects of personnel policy not directly related to service abroad be identical with the provisions in the U.S. Code for the civil service at home. In my opinion, the most important such new statutory provisions as those incorporated in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, particularly the Federal Labor Relations Authority, The Federal Impasses Panel and the Merit Systems Protection Board with its Special Counsel. In conclusion, I thank you once again. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you, very much. We appreciate your testi- mony and since I am chairing, I will wait with my questions and start off with Congressman Fascell. . Mr. FASCELL. I have so many questions I am not sure where I want to start. I have to digest them all. Perhaps I will know more about what I want to ask when you get through. Mr. KoCZAK. Would you prefer we go on? Mrs. SCHROEDER. You have a statement you want to make on title VII, is that correct? Mr. KOCZAK. Yes. Perhaps that would be helpful. It concerns labor- management relations. It is evident to us that Foreign Service should be placed under the provisions of title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The labor-management title in the proposed bill does not grant full col- lective bargaining to members of the Foreign Service. We believe in universality of protection for all employees. As we hope you will conclude from our report on the origin of the foreign affairs specialist program, the only assurance that such bizarre under- takings are prevented is to have labor-management relaitions governed by the same principles as those which apply everywhere else where there are American employees of the Federal Government. The Foreign Service was originally excluded from the provisions of title VII of the civil service reform bill, in part because of the al- leged jurisdiction problems between the Post Office and Civil Service and Foreign Affairs Committees. Such problems do not confront us to- day because these committees have agreed to hold joint hearings. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Further, as seen with the implementing legislation for the Panama Canal Treaties, where coverage of title VII was extended to employees of the Panama Canal 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 language under exclusions : (iv) an officer or employee in the Foreign Service of the United States em- ployed 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 man- ner to proceed. We oppose the provisions of the administration pro- posal 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 possible problems which concern members of our union and of the American Foreign Service Association. One concerns the issue of worldwide representation; the other concerns so-called supervisors being in the unit. Both problems arise from the ambiguities in the rank-in-person and worldwide availability requirements of Foreign Service personnel. Consequently, these need to be perceived in their fundamental rela- tionship to the subject of appropriate 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 personnel. These are all handled by centralized or collegial bodies. The problems of management, and the abuses of management, con- sequently reside in the anonymities of centralized administration and collegial bodies. These are the real managers of the Foreign Service. It is igainst their anonymous action that even the most senior Foreign Service officers and personnel need the protection of the worldwide 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 manage- ment manipulation? We have not found this to be the case. Common interests, particu- larly in working conditions overseas, create a collegiality among For- eign Service employees. Conflicts can be resolved by resort to the Grievance Board. Nevertheless, we want to face up to the fact there is a peculiarity, an anomaly, here and there are potential dangers of a supervisor sit- ting in judgment at the same union meetings as persons being managed or supervised. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 It is precisely for that very reason of potential danger and conflict of interests that we wish to have the entire Foreign Service placed un- der the jurisdiction of subpart F, Labor-Management and Employee Relations of title V of the United States Code, to assure the fullest measure of supervision over the activities of both management and labor in the Foreign Service takes place by the Federal Labor Rela- tions 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 reten- tion of the present worldwide units and the present membership in the units and leave all other matters to the jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. For the reasons we have given and the weaknesses which we per- ceive, we oppose totally the enactment of legislation such as that pro- posed by the administration as chapter 10 of its draft bill, entitled "Labor-Management Relations." We oppose that because it would freeze present inequities and not extend the protections we think are necessary to all persons which are afforded by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose decisions, precedents and procedures should be applicable to all members of the Foreign Service and, if conflicts of interest arise in the units, the Authority can note them with care and remedy them. 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. That is our formal statement on labor-management relations. We do comment in our annex No.1 on some of the aspects of it as well? Mrs. SCHROEDER. Did you want to present that? Did you want to make a further presentation? Mr. KOCZAK. Perhaps we will jump to Senior Foreign Service which is the other matter that gives us concern. This feature of the proposed legislation is clearly patterned after title IV of the Civil Service Reform Act establishing the Senior Executive Service. The opportunity to create this executive corps was obviously a major incentive for developing that. reform 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 officers there is overwhelming concern with the possibility that the SFS as now designed will permit wholesale politicization of the Foreign Service and discourage 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 2 or 3 years, by establishing Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 time-in-class at 1 or 2 years and permitting no, or few, limited exten- sions. While no one accuses the drafters of the bill with such intentions, 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 advisable. Let me make specific reference to those aspects of the SFS which are without parallel in the SES and which we find objectionable. First, 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 mem- ber 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 companion to the stringent provisions regarding retention and removal. In our view no less should be pro- vided 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 un- suitable 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 50 while still retaining skills and knowledge important to the agency. The disincentive 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 nonrenewal 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 section (c) to section 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, remain- ing 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 periods served in the Senior Foreign Service shall be subtracted from the time-in-class period. Second, 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 quanti- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 fled, where service abroad has hazards, where one is removed from centers of power and is not able to have access to explain the positions and the arguments pro and con, face to face with the people who are involved, and where personal integrity and courage 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 exten- sions" be deleted, that a minimum time-in-class period be established for the SFS. Third, 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 purpose of this provision are not immediately clear but the provision appears to conflict with the merit principles incorporated into the bill. Under merit principles, employees are to be retained on the basis of the adequacy of their performance. When agency managements determine the number of promotion opportunities and selections into the SFS, they will surely consider this factor without 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 interests 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. * * * Today, the number of officers at the class 1-3 levels and the number of jobs classified at those ranks are at parity and the historic imbalance has been resolved. I'm convinced, therefore, that current legislative authority and internal administrative 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. We have one last section or two sections on pay comparability and on retirement, if I may read those now to you. One of the most critical problems, associated with proper classifi- cation, in the area of personnel practices, is appropriate pay. The administration draft is silent on its specific character and we con- sider this one of the many serious weaknesses in the bill. Our union endorses fully the principle that Foreign Service per- sonnel be assured of proper classification, equivalent to those provided civil service employees. We feel that, just as civil service employees now enjoy overtime pay, Foreign Service employees should be en- titled to the same provisions. Consequently, we request that you include in your legislation the provision that both base and premium pay for Foreign Service per- sonnel 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. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 The simplest way to achieve this would be to restate that the pro- visions of title V, United States Code, which incorporate 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 worldwide service, to the attendant disruptions in their as- signments, to the stresses in their personal and family lives. For that reason, we propose that Foreign Service personnel be paid, at all times, a tax-exempt allowance to compensate them for this as- pect of their governmental service. I should like to suggest the fol lowing 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 lower grades are ade- quately compensated and that personnel in the higher grades, particu- larly in the Foreign Senior Executive Service, if it is established, do not benefit disproportionately from other members of the Foreign Service. Our last major proposal concerns retirement. We say as follows : 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 Investigation, other law enforcement groups, firefighters, and air traffic controllers, and employees of the Alaska Railroad. In fact, for most of them, mandatory retirement is at a lower age than 60. I request permission to include as attachment II hereto ex- tracts 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 20 years of service at 2.5 percent and not the 2 percent offered Foreign Service personnel. To qualify for this larger annuity, they contribute 7.5 percent to their retirement annuity instead of 7 percent. I should like to suggest that all Foreign Service personnel required to serve worldwide be brought under provisions similar to those af- forded 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 actual Foreign Service. In summary, the following retirement provision would apply to all persons in the Foreign Service : First 20 years computed at 2.25 per- cent, remainder at 2 percent, with voluntary retirement at any age after 5 years of service abroad. Those are the issues attendant on Foreign Service generally. The other issues are those located in the Agency for International Devel- opment and I do not know whether you wish to discuss general pro- visions first before we go to the special problems of the agencies. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 110 Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank you. I think you have done the overview and now our problem is to figure out where we begin to ask questions. Let me throw one out to begin. Is there any reason for a separate Foreign Service? A lot of your testi- mony is that you would like things similar to the civil service. Why not just have a worldwide civil service? Mr. KOCZAK. I think that proposal certainly has not been examined and has a great deal of merit. I am not sure how the individual mem- bers of the Foreign Service would respond because they are rather concerned about status and one of the nonmonetary rewards to human beings is to have a status which distinguishes and identifies them from other human beings. If I may comment, I was a Foreign Service officer when the so- called Wristonization program cane in and those Foreign Service of- ficers who entered by the regular process were outraged. All kinds of people who did not pass the same examination which they had passed could come aboard and I would say that there was a great deal of friction and tension as to whether they did in fact match the same standards. There is one plausible if not conclusive argument for a Foreign Serv- ice. which is not totally separate. I do want to present, while not en- dorsing, that argument to you. We ourselves raised it in an oblique manner when we said that other Federal agencies are sending people abroad who we believe are eroding the Foreign Service generally of those functions which the ambassador must carry out. Even if one were to assume hypothetically that all members of the Foreign Service should be concurrently in the civil service, I think you still would want to have the'same kind of formal relationship preserved for those who go abroad, if they are already in the civil service, that one has in the military, that is, the active duty versus the reserve officers. One of the problems of people at the Department of the Treasury, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce who go abroad is that they have no introduction or apprenticeship at the junior level to cover Foreign Service disciplines. They do not pass the minimum standards which they should be aware. They do not have the same kinds of introduction in their prepartion for going abroad that the people in AID and ICA and State who go abroad have. So, when you ask, is there any need for a separate Foreign Service, I have interpreted that question to mean totally separate, totally segre- gated as the military service is separate from civil service. I do think there is a need and there will be a continuing need to see to it that Foreign Service civilian people who go abroad at least have a char- acteristic that may be called "amphibian," that they are able to live a disciplined collegial life abroad and to concert their operations abroad with other people abroad, whether in the information agency, the dip- lomatic and consular services, even with people in CIA who are abroad under covert programs. So, if one asks, should there be no distinction whatsoever, should there be no qualifying preconditions for Foreign Service, I would think that is impossible and impracticable. Perhaps that is the way, if I were trying to respond, I would try to reformulate your question. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that because they are asked Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 to accept greater disciplines, Foreign Service officers should have not only all the rights and all facilities available to civil service people, but more. Thus, for AFGE the question is : Does that require a totally separate Foreign Service or does it require instead some sort of organizational distinctiveness whereby people who go abroad clearly accept the fact that employment abroad will be different; they will be asked to per- form things not required in the domestic service; they will be avail- able for worldwide duty; and they will comprehend there would be direct reciprocity between disciplined duty and personal prerequisites. The "total separation" which has been sought at times in the past has led to all kinds of manipulations unrelated to the needs of the Foreign Service, even unrelated to needs of the government itself, which is the issue I think you are trying to address, if I may be al- lowed to interpret your question even more. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. I want to pursue that. I am not sure, so you will have to take my interrogation here in a rather broad and general sense as to where you are going. I gather you are not for this bill at all. Mr. KOCZAH. We are not for the bill at all for the reasons we have given. Mr. FASCELL. Therefore, the suggestion that you made for amend- ments are just merely what, gratuitous comment on the bill since you are not for the bill? Mr. KOCZAK. No, sir. We have been told thebill is going to emerge as law so to the extent the bill in some form will be law, we know it will govern Foreign Service life. We are not the Congress of the United Mates and consequently if the bill is enacted we would hope that our amendments would be incorporated into them. Mr. FASCELL. I think that is important to have on the record. You are not just throwing the amendments into the air. Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield? Would you be supportive if all your amendments were adopted? Mr. KOCZAK. We would. Mr. MICA. You would support it? Mr KoczAK. I think we would support the bill. Mr. FASCELL. The other thing I would see developing which I do not particularly want to get into-I can understand. why nobody has fooled with this since 1946-is that nobody wants to take you guys on and then you have a jurisdictional fight. You talk about jurisdictional fights in Congress, it is peanuts to what I see happening out there. What you suggest is a larger, more effective role for AFGE. Mr. KoczAK. No, sir, we did not suggest that. We suggested Mr. FASCELL. I know you have not suggested a smaller, less effec- tive role for AFGE. Mr. KOCZAK. What we have suggested-and after all, we can lose the representation at the International Communication Agency-we have suggested a larger role for all Foreign Service employees, a role which would be equivalent to the role all civil service employees have whether they are operating through the instrumentalities that are set out for the special council, for the Merit Protection Board or for the union. I It is not necessarily AFGE. We may lose the representation. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 112 Mr. FASCELL. That was not meant to be critical. I have to translate what you are telling me all the time, because you are speaking from years of background and experience that I do not have. I am not sure exactly what it is you are telling me, but I hope to be able to catch up with it shortly. Let me see again. I gather you are for some kind of distinction for the Foreign Service-in terms of pay, for example-because of the necessity for worldwide service. Am I correct so far? Mr. KoczAK. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. The other is a distinction for the Foreign Service in terms of retirement. Am I correct on that? Mr. KOCZAK. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. So those would be distinguishing features from other employees who would not be Foreign Service employees. Mr. KOCZAK. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. And therefore, you are not saying that it should be a unified civil service system? Mr. KOCZAK. No, sir. We are not saving that. We are saying that just as the air traffic controllers, who are within the civil service, have spe- cial considerations for them so Foreign Service personnel in their dis- tinctive service should have special considerations. Mr. FASCELL. Hazardous duty recognition in terms of pay allow- ances, retirement? Mr. KOCZAK. Yes; and examination. We have no objection to examination. Mr. FASCELL. In terms of meeting a different criteria for employ- ment, those would be distinguishing benchmarks. Do you have any problems with giving them a title instead of a number? Mr. KoczAE. No, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Now, we are on the same railroad track. Let's start at the top. Should the Ambassador be classified by a title or number? Mr. KOCZAK. No, sir; he is appointed by the President. Mr. FASCELL. So, all constitutional officers would be exempt. Now regarding nonconstitutional officers-where does that start? Mr. KOCZAK. I believe at the present time they are called career ambassadors and then career ministers and eight grades, and then you have what has now become, in practice but not in law, defunct, what is called the Foreign Service Staff and Staff Officer Corps. It has been rendered defunct by administrative fiat. Mr. FASCELL. Start at the top. Mr. KoczAK. Foreign Service 1 through 8 and Reserve Unlimited groups and Reserves which are parallel. Mr. FASCELL. Are they to the side or below? Mr. KOCZAK. To the side. Career ambassadors, career minister 1 to 8, and then on the side there are the Foreign Service Reserve un- limited, on the side. The main difference is their names are not sub- mitted for confirmation to the Senate. Mr. FASCELL. In terms of the labor-management relationships you were talking about, in that scale of people that you just advised me, would everybody be in or everybody out or somebody be in and some- body out? Mr. KOCZAK. In terms of what we described the people would be in the units as they are now. Overseas the main distinction is that all Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 so-called supervisors and managers except for the very top person in the post, is in a unit. All these employees are, of course, career personnel. Mr. FASCELL. I am having a hard time following this because I do not have the knowledge of the operation; but this supervisor, as I un- derstand it, does not have a designated job description. Mr. KOCZAK. There is a position abroad which clearly states the person supervises, usually, foreign personnel. Mr. FASCELL. Are you talking about administrative people? Mr. KOCZAK. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. We are not referring to the hierarchy of the State Department as such. Mr. KoczAK. No, sir. A Foreign Service officer does not have a super- visory function, for example, by that designation of class 1 officer-he is not a supervisor per se. Mr. FASCELL. I thought I understood you to say that. I just wanted to be sure what people you were -talking about, to be sure I had that clear in my mind. So, would you repeat again for me the labor-man- agement relationships in the ideal situation, as you have recom- mended them, applied to career ambassador, career minister, and those eight levels, the two groups on the side, and all the foreign nationals. Mr. KOCZAK. I should say that these are administrative titles, career ambassador, career minister, and have nothing to do with their func- tion at any post. Now, obviously there would be the problem of who is the very top person at any single post, consulate or Embassy abroad. Mr. FASCELL. Wouldn't that be determined by his actual designa- tion, not by Mr. KOOZAK. It would be determined by his assignment. The chief of the mission, for example, would be excluded automatically, no matter what his rank. It could be FSO-8. Mr. FASCELL. By virtue of his assignment to that particular super- visory responsibility. Mr. KOCZAK. Yes. But when he came back home he would cease to be a supervisor and might be just a professional or technical person and would be again in the unit. That would be the functional distinction that distinguishes between class rank and the function one is performing. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Leach. Mr. LEACH. Are you familiar with the Hay Associates study? Mr. KOCZAK. Only in the sense that we have heard of it. Mr. LEACH. Do you support it? Mr. KOCZAK. I have not read it sufficiently. We received a copy last riday so we could not interpret it as we were busy writing testimony. Mr. LEACH. Do you go on the premise Foreign Service people are verpaid or underpaid? Mr. KOCZAK. We think they are underpaid. Mr. LEACH. Do you think a way of searching for comparability ould be to equate Foreign Service salaries to civil service rather than ping outside civil service? Mr. KOCZAK. There are many ways of determining comparability. e have tried to build into a structure a fair base. Now, compensation Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 114 abroad has all kinds of other allowances. The problem, if I understand the Hay Associate study, is they tried to study what people get in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, which is absurd because the conditions in Saudi Arabia and Brazil are so exceptional that the only way you can solve that is by tax exempt allowances, not by pay. We said for that kind of situation if it is $100,000 one has to give to secretaries to go to Saudi Arabia because of the value of the dollar, give them $100,000 in allowances. That should not be considered base pay and it should be tax exempt. The Treasury Department wants to tax these allowances, which we think is an appalling situation because it would- mean the Foreign Service personnel would have to pay taxes on allowances from base pay, turn their whole base salary over just to pay the income tax on the allowances. We distinguish between allowances and base pay. Mr. LEACH. Are you familiar with the AFSA recommendation, for equating Foreign Service pay to GS scales? Mr. KOCZAB. We have seen several proposals. I prepared at one time a relationship between the two and we believe that should have been brought before the pay council on which I was serving. But, just as with the pay for the doctors in the Department of Medicine and Surgery, the pay agent never addressed the issue. I was an alternate on the pay council and repeatedly we asked the pay agent, when are you going to raise the subject properly so we can make some accom- modation, and they never did. So, the fact is that the Secretary of State and, at that time, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission were derelict in not doing their duty in presenting proposals to the members of the President's pay agent. Thus, there was no way for us to make a determination on a more proper linkage. We represent Foreign Service personnel at ICA so that subject is just as close to us as it is to AFSA. Mr. LEACH. I am referring to AFSA testimony today. Mr. KOCZAK. I have not seen their testimony today. Mr. LEACH. It is my understanding you oppose mandatory retire- ment; is that correct? Mr. KoCZAE. We also oppose mandatory retirement, even in a case of the air traffic controllers. As I indicated, our wishes and our views have not been accepted by Congress. We are saying if there is manda- tory retirement, we want 2.5 percent for Foreign Service people just as for air traffic controllers for the first 20 years of service. Mr. LEACH. So, you would not favor it at a higher level, 62 or 65 or 67. Mr. KoozAK. Our view is just as there are Congressmen and Ambas- sadors who are 70 years old, if they are qualified they should be per- mitted to stay. There is no reason why civil servants should not be able to stay longer. If they are not qualified, there is a way to retire them. You can simply say, "We do not have a position you can fill adequately." Mandatory selection-out for everybody over age 60, we think that is discrimination. There are a lot of people 60 years old, Foreign Service officers, who are as good as people 59 years old and who are Foreign Service officers and there are people 59 years old just as good as 18 18-year-olds. That is our argument. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 If they cannot perform and cannot go abroad or there are too many of them, as there have been-the Department of State has said you can be 21 years in grade FSO-1-we say that is an administrative issue. If they do not have the courage to select-out officers largely because they themselves are also at FSO-1, there is a real problem that confronts all of us-administrative courage. That is what is lacking at the Department of State and Foreign Service, at the top, and you do not have to go through this farce of get- ting rid of all people at age 60 when many are still highly qualified. I think the whole country begins to oppose that. That is the reason we oppose it, because we think it is illogical. Mr. LEACa. Do you support either the maintenance of the current Foreign Service officer system or the proposed Foreign Service devel- opment officer system? Mr. KoCZAK. We favor the information officer system because al- though we believe there are really very fundamental minimal stand- ards that everybody should pass in some form or other and they should be qualified, we think the heads of these different agencies should be able to administer their own people. There is no way to consolidate these agencies rationally today, especially with the experience the Department of State has had with the cumbersome "cone system"-we dread what will happen to the efficiency of the information service, for example, if they got tangled up in the system developed at the State Department. Mr. LEACH. I happen to agree entirely with that. Mr. IRELAND. Thank you. During your conversation about the Senior Executive Service you alluded to the difficulty in judging perform- ance and I got the impression that perhaps it was impossible to judge some of this performance. I am not sure I would agree with that, but a moment ago in response to what Congressman Leach was saying you referred to administra- tive courage and that you would not have to worry so much about the age 60 or 62 or 63 if there were administrative courage. Can you tell me in what way you think, if a man did have adminis- trative courage, that under our existing system he could pull this off ? It seems to me that is the very heart of the question, that administra- tive courage or not, we are so tangled up in vague references to per- formance and unwillingness to go by judgment of performance that even the guy with administrative courage either is going to end up in the soup himself because his judgment is challenged or whatnot. How is all that compatible in your mind? Mr. KOCZAK. Secretary Vance was kind enough to invite us to meet with him and we discussed this problem of what should be the specific role of the Senior Foreign Service. It was our view that basically the concept of the senior executive service was to try to establish another level of managerial function, political in the broad sense, not in the partisan sense, of people available to any administration with a tech- nical expertise. They could bring them in and take them out at will, taking into account that very often the most expert person cannot get along with his immediate political boss. Personality and ideology may be more important in this wider managerial role than expertise. If that is the purpose of the senior executive service and if that is the purpose of the Senior foreign Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Service, it is a kind of specialized person-to-person relationship where the Secretary of State and his closest associates would have technical experts at hand who are compatible in ideology and personality and "style" with them. If that is what is intended-and it has a certain amount of ration- ale-the person who was brought on top should be able to parachute back to the regular career because this senior executive-service is a sort of extra career function. You take on a function that is personal to the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury and there is much more of your personality as a part of it, than there is of your expertise. Mr. FASCELL. Will the gentleman yield? If I understand what you are saying, it is as if under one administration somebody comes out of the ranks and gets up into that Senior Service and then in the next administration he is kicked out. You are suggesting he goes back to the level where he started from? Mr. KOOZAK. That is correct. So that would mean his expertise would be preserved and the person would be more prepared to run the risk. If you know you are not going to have your career throat slit entirely by disagreeing on an energy proposal but that you might be able to sur- vive at a lower previous level until maybe some other person comes in who is going to be your new political boss and you go up to SES again-if I may give one example. Mr. IRELAND. Let's get more into administrative courage, whether the guy goes up and parachutes back or never goes up. Let's talk about below Senior Executive level and your comment that administrative courage would solve the thing of opting out at 60 or 65. It does not seem to me in our current setup that anybody with administrative courage that wants to move somebody to the happy hunting grounds because he is not getting the job done-the guy with administrative courage does not have a chance in the world of getting the job done. Mr. KoezAK. Then what kind of executive do we have ? I have to say we should not have to look to the people who are the typists and the clerks to be the salvation of the foreign policy of the United States if the people at the top cannot do the job. Mr. IRELAND. If they get up there and they have been "Peter prin- cipled" by moving up to a grade they cannot keep up with, I do not care who has the administrative courage, it does not seem they will get the job done when a guy is promoted beyond his capabilities. Mr. KOCZAK. You may be correct. I cannot comment on that. I am saying that the Secretary of State is derelict in that situation if he can- not see to it-he has the responsibility-it is not the union's responsi- bility. All our responsibility is to see to it whoever is removed is not removed for partisan reasons. The second problem you are raising is an issue of personality and structure and management. Mr. IRELAND. I thought that is what you were referring to when you used the phrase "administrative courage." Administrative courage could eliminate-and I am sure this was what you were saying-much of the need for this legislative administrative early retirement. Now, what I am anxious to hear you say is why you believe that Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 administrative courage is absent, is it because all our administrators have no courage? Mr. KoCZAK. I would not say that. We are coming now, I think, to the point that Representative Schroeder raised. I think that may be the real reason she raised it. Let us take the situation of the Foreign Service officers class 1. They have put in all kinds of service at hazardous positions and let's say there are 15 percent more of them than the service can use at the mo- ment. No one can really know who of these is in the bottom 15 percent. There is no way of distinguishing between them, at least on paper. They are all at the top. It is the same as if you were to say all Nobel prize winners are to suffer selection-out, you are going to see that one takes away 15 per- cent of the Nobel prize awards from them as if these were a limited quantity. That is the problem the administrators face. They now say one of the ways to solve this problem is that, because we cannot decide rationally, we will let the throw of the dice decide and the game of the throw of the dice is "age 60, out you go." The problem now really is that there is no way for them to say you go out as FSO-1 and be* a civil servant, GS-18, because of the total present severance between Foreign Service and civil service. I found rather plausible what Mrs. Schroeder was saying, perhaps we should not sever the two services altogether, but merely remove him from For- eign Service, you might find courage appear there, because it is not "courage" but "compassion" that gets in the way of these cases. If you serve abroad and talk to the people, it is hard to know which is the lamb or the goat, who are going to be mostly lambs, who is going to be sacrificed as goats. So, if there were this fallback, there might be more rational "courage." I think there is a great deal of merit to what Representative Schroeder suggests that we do a disservice to the Gov- ernment of the United States and the Foreign Service by this great separation, the segregation of Foreign Service from civil service. Mr. IRELAND. Madam Chairman, could I ask one more question along that same line? I want to make sure I understand what your opinion is of the separation of two different entities, Foreign Service and civil service. I think you referred to the status that went along with us and I think perception is reality there. I am sure there is some status but in my district I do not think anybody would want that status. So, it is in the peoples' minds and I agree with you. Do I understand that in your opinion the ideal would be one over- all civil service arrangement and then, be they in the State Depart- ment or the Communication Department or the CIA or Commerce, if they did go overseas regardless of from which department they originated, they would be subject to one examination. They would be subject, on the other hand, to hazard pay, retire- ment, and everything based on going overseas. Mr. KoczAi. And discipline. Mr. IRELAND. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. In the civil service 10 percent of the senior executives can be non- career. In this proposal 5 percent of the senior Foreign Service can be. Do you see any reason for the distinction? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. KOCZAK. No, sir. As a matter of fact we have real concerns about the Foreign Service Senior Executive Service. Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you support legislation to provide that former spouses of Foreign Service officers receive part of the annuity after the officer dies if the marriage lasted for 10 years? Mr. KOCZAK. Yes. Mr. BUCHANAN. Do you have any comment on the proper relation- ship between the State Department and ICA and whether this legis- lation provides for an appropriate relationship between the two? Mr. KoCZAK. We fear this legislation would disturb what is today an appropriate relationship. We have been very much concerned that ultimately this legislation is intended to put within the jurisdiction of the State Department Foreign Service the same rule as the Office of Personnel Management has, and even more the right to assign people there on the Foreign Affairs agencies. We think that would be very harmful, similar to the cone system that developed within the Foreign Service of the Department of State. So, we do wish to have the heads of these agencies able to operate in terms of missions assigned to them by Congress and not in terms of their being diffused by somehow being intermingled with something else. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Harris. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. I am sorry for coming in late. I am familiar with your testimony and your position. I guess I want to ask you a simplistic question here, if I may. Is there any reason to have a sepa- rate Foreign Service? Mr. KOCZAK. We earlier went through this question and I said I believe and it is the consensus of our locals that the term "separate" has to be analyzed because it can be ambiguous. If one means separate the way it is now, there is no reason why it has to be as it is now. If it is meant, should we realize there are in fact, in real life, fundamental distinctions between service abroad, disciplines abroad, the fact that small groups of Americans live in a community that perhaps a Foreign Service officer who is a class 1 officer, may have to do the work of a Foreign Service officer class 8 so the classification systems do not work or class 8 officer on occasion has to do the work of a Foreign Service class 1. We think unless the Congress and unless we ourselves take into account that there is this very important distinction we will not under- stand the meaning of separate. When I responded earlier I said I think there is perhaps too much of a segregation and that all Foreign Serv- ice personnel should have the fundamental rights of the civil service, perhaps they should have a dual classification. They should have some relationship to the civil service; perhaps job rights at home in other agencies, potential rights when they come back. If they are selected out, they have some access to civil service classi- fication and that is not very different than what happens now for per- sons who have not been Federal employees. If you are in private enter- prise, if you work outside, you can now go to the Office of Personnel Management, formerly the Civil Service Commission, and ask to be classified on the basis of your past private enterprise record; then you are entitled to get a job in the government at some general schedule grade, say for example GS-11. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 If you are in the Foreign Service and the equivalent of your job is GS-111, we think those people should be able to have jobs in the Govern- ment at GS-11. Simply because they are no longer in Lithuania, for example, where we had an embassy at one time and there is no longer a need for a Lithuanian officer, there is no reason why they should not have a job in some other branch of Government while retaining the retirement rights they acquired in the Foreign Service. Mr. HARRIS. How would this affect the Agriculture attache, Com- merce attache and so forth? Mr. KoczAK. What we are facing is a total fragmentation because the Foreign Service is increasingly segregated from civil service and these different departments find they have needs abroad which are not being accommodated. Since the boundary between Foreign Service and civil service is kept impermeable, there is no way these civil service agencies can move in and out and preserve jurisdiction of any sort over their own people. They lose them or they move back and it is only through retreat rights. We think there is a very real need for the Congress to find a relation- ship, a fundamental relationship between the traditional Foreign Service and everybody going abroad from Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Treasury, CIA. So, we fundamentally agree that persons in service abroad should be recognized as having positions more dan- gerous, more hazardous, more tense, more onerous and there should be supplements paid on top, a reward paid on top of what civil service employees get. Mr. HARRIS. It seems to me what you are saying is all professional employees of our Government should be civil service and that those Government employees that at times do service abroad should be sub- ject to a layer of recompense, of requirements, what have you, that would apply to them. Mr. KOCZAK. And discipline. They have to understand when they are abroad they are under the governance of the Ambassador. They are in the Foreign Service. I think it is not soley from our point of view to get more pay. You enter a new official family relationship and you must realize you must get along with everybody abroad in the special environment that s abroad. This is what we meant about the amphibious role of a per- son who moves from civil service to Foreign Service abroad because life :here is different and it is getting harder. When they come back, when they are in the United States, they hould have all the rights of the civil service available to them, even though their formal distinct status remains Foreign Service. Mr. HARRIS. Let me ask you two general questions to help my think- ng. I had a little experience with regard to this. There is a thing out here now where a fellow may have or a person may have served over- eas for 20 years but he or she really is not a Foreign Service officer. And it always seemed vague to me, does this proposal help correct that ituation in any way? Mr. KOCZAK. No, sir. You are speaking of the issue of personal pres- ige and status. Mr. HARRIS. Sure. Mr. KOCZAK. It is supposed to be one of the rewards and has become ne of the curses of service abroad because there is so much preoccupa- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 tion with whether you have a diplomatic passport or another passport. It has contributed to the decline of our policies abroad. Mr. HARRIS. You say this proposal does not help it. Mr. KoczAK. I do not see how it solves that problem. Mr. HARRIS. The other element, so often, for example around the turn of the century, I had knowledge with regard to agricultural at- taches. So often it occurred to me that we got a special advantage in having people in our Embassy that had very specialized, what I call, substantive knowledge as distinguished from being professional rep- resentatives and that there was an advantage that could be had by hav- ing people move from, for example, very substantive type of occupa- tions in the Department of Agriculture and other agencies into a foreign post and back again. And that attache just did not have to be an attache all the time. He could spend 3 or 4 years as an attache, 3 or 4 years doing domestic work and 3 or 4 years as an attache with a great deal of advantage. Does this proposal help to facilitate that type of movement? Mr. KOCZAK. Do you mean the administration's proposal? Mr. HARRIS. Yes. Mr. KoczAK. We do not perceive that. As a matter of fact that is what worries us. At the outset of the statement Mr. Blaylock and the two locals both agree there is a real threat to the integrity and the effi- ciency of the foreign policy of the United States by the failure to pro- vide some way in which those various Departments, Agriculture, Com- merce, Energy, et cetera, are able to integrate their people into the whole life of the missions abroad, and they should be able, and very often they are the only ones available to carry out the foreign policy of the United States. Maybe the most senior and most valuable person is an agricultural attache and is the most qualified person politically at the moment there, under circumstances such as we have now in Cambodia and Vietnam or even Iran. That is one of the points we make in our testimony, that the time has come to see the relationship to the Foreign Service of the civil service personnel in all the departments of Washington who go abroad and their collective relationship both to each other and to the Foreign Service abroad and to the Ambassadors abroad. Mr. HARRIS. I tend to agree with that observation. I have seen, for example, in some countries, the agricultural attache becoming an ex- tremely valuable person or right hand of the Ambassador because his or her knowledge of current science, of current technology, of current real life activities in the agricultural field gave the people in those foreign countries a reason to talk to him, to curry his friendship, to really utilize his or her knowledge. Mr. KOCZAK. I think there is no question that very often, not in- frequently, but very often the people who have substantive relation- ships and who are open and are in a sense at least initially removed from the specific programs, are able to develop and be accepted and then able to feed it at least the intelligence that they are able to acquire. Not necessarily the decisionmaking but the intelligence they gather because they are not identified with one or the other current policies so formally. They should not make a decision contrary to the decision made by the Government of the United States but they should be avail- able for information and intelligence and they should be utilized. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 And I gather the point you are making is that there are occasions which this attache should not be withdrawn from the mission if it turns out there is a possibility the ambassador has special reliance on that attache. You are saying there should be some relationship between the ,civil service and the Foreign Service, between the Secretary of Agri- culture and the Secretary of State, so that that person is allowed to stay there in the best interests of the United States and be rewarded for staying there. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have many further questions. I think what we might do is offer to keep the record open and have people submit ques- tions for the record. I just wanted to ask one brief one. Do you have a collective bargaining agreement between the ICA and AFGE that Will expire on June 30 of 1981? Mr. KOCZAK. May I have the President of ICA respond? Mr. ABE HARRIS. No. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What is going to happen? Mr. ABE HARRIS. The agreement was open ended. Just as Mr. Koczak explained, 1981 was purely the date where you could convert the GS voluntarily and basically at that time USIA, when this agreement was made, could live with the fact it would take 15 years to 20 years to phase out this FAS program whereas now apparently State Depart- ent has continued this program up to about 6 months ago, I believe, when they stopped hiring people. AMSA wants to terminate very quickly. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So you have a real contract problem. Mr. ABE HARRIS. We think the fundamental issue, if the State De- partment does not like a labor management agreement that USIA ind local 1812 concluded, should they come to Congress and ask them lo rewrite that agreement? Mrs. SCHROEDER. Let me briefly ask all of you, if we were to adopt title VII of Civil Service, would you permit Foreign Service em- ployees and other employees of the American Government overseas to picket U.S. Embassies if there is some problem? Mr. ABE HARRIS. Informational picketing is allowed in this country ~nd I think the Teachers Union has picketed some bases overseas. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I do not believe they picketed an embassy. Mr. ABE HARRIS. They picketed the bases where they were working. Mr. KoCZAK. May I inquire, what is the picketing about which you were asking? Mrs. SCHROEDER. As I say, we have to deal with this as a portion of he issue when we look at title VII negotiating rights. The question ~s what do we do about pickets at embassies abroad? Mr. KOCZAK. I think a question like that would not depend on our ishes. This is the reason why we did want to have it under the ederal Labor Relations Authority so that an issue like that could e resolved in universal terms and not ad hoc. It probably would need ,o be determined by Congress in the first instance. What we are asking ou is how -you plan to permit it, if you do, and what body, if not he Federal Labor Relations Authority, acting on universal principles ould administer it. There are more civilians working for military nstallations abroad. Do you wish to permit them to picket? If so, n what issues? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 122 Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is right but you also told us before that of your expertise in dealing with employees. In other words, you also support separation of the Foreign Service and higher pay for Foreign Service and for the little better retirement. My question is then : How do the people in the civil service that you represent feel about that? Those are your areas of expertise that I feel we need to get from you. What do you feel about picketing abroad? What do you feel about those issues? Mr. KOCZAK. I think we should have local 1534 people respond also. I wonder whether we might not respond to you in writing to separate the different kinds of picketing that are involved. Where does the picketing take place? Obviously you are going to have staff type issue picketing and other picketing the basic purpose of which is polit- ical-they do not like the foreign policy that is made by the Govern- ment of the United States. Then you go into a very serious issue. Let me, if I may, narrate for you problems which our union confronted in the past-perhaps it will be helpful. During the Vietnam war some of our locals wanted to picket under the AFGE symbol against the further participation by the Gov- ernment, by the United States in the Vietnam war. Our president at that time, Mr. Griner, objected to that, noting they were free to picket under any other organization. There is nothing to stop them from being against the Vietnam war but there was no deci- sion, there was no resolution by our convention on that issue and they were not free, therefore, to put out AFGE signs and say, "We are picketing as AFGE members." It had nothing to do with labor rela- tions, management relations and he did not permit the picketing but expelled the locals involved. To the extent it has to do with labor management relations and to the extent there was a breakdown in all communication with the United States-I cannot imagine it-but I cannot foresee how people would go out on the street automatically and begin picketing because they hap- pen to disagree with some personnel policy. And the second problem, if I may continue, is that the Ambassador is not the person who is the one they are picketing against. Their con- tract is with the agency, not with the Ambassador. Mrs. SCHROEDER. He is a Presidential appointee. He is a symbol. Mr. KoCZA$. My point is, if you are picketing you are picketing. For example, if they picket against HEW, HEW may have a contract with our local but it is not the Ambassador who has a contract with us. Unless they are picketing on some personal action, in the light of the situation it is the agency with which we have the contract. We do not have the contract with the Ambassador. You have the contract with the agency. It may be we want to picket ICA back here for what is happening, let's say, in England. We may want to do that, but I do not see how the Ambassador out there is the. person who is the contractor, and I do not see how the members out there have written a contract. It would be Mr. Harris or Mr. Cope who would have to authorize the picketing; otherwise I think we would have a question as to the relationship of the local itself to its own officers and to the rest of the body. That is why we want to clarify and respond to you in writing. But I do want to say our contract is not with the Ambassador. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have about two pages of simple questions like this, but I think I will submit them for the record because we have a whole group of people waiting to testify and they have a lot to say too. So, unless there are further questions, let me thank you and we will proceed and I will look forward to being your pen pal. We welcome you. Would you introduce the people with you and we will put your full testimony into the record and you can summarize or whatever. STATEMENT OF LARS HYDLE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION Mr. HYDr,E. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Lars Hydle. I am the president of the American Foreign Service Association. I am accompanied by, at my right and your left, legal counsel Catherine Waelder; Joseph McBride, a member of the out- going and incoming governing boards. We just had an election, and he has chaired a task force on one of the aspects of this bill. To my immediate left, Ken Rogers, outgoing vice president and chairman of the standing committee on Department of State affairs which worked so hard to prepare our testimony, and Bob Stern who coordinated our task forces and is a member of the outgoing governing board and of the State standing committee. Mrs. SCHROEDER. May I ask a question at this point? Does that mean the position presented today is that of the new governing board or the old governing board position or of both? Mr. HYDLE. I cover that briefly in our statement. The new govern- ing board has not yet taken office. It will take office July 15 and there- fore it cannot at this moment take a formal position. The actions that we have taken do ranresent in our judgment the consensus of the Foreign Service and I have with me-though we could not get him at the front table-the president-elect, new president-elect who will comment before we finish our formal testimony. Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittees, for more than half a century the American Foreign Service Association has been the professional representative of the career Foreign Service, active duty as well as retired. Since 1973, AFSA has been the ex- clusive representative of the Foreign Service in the Department of State and the Agency for International Development that represents 9,000 employees in State and about 2,000 in AID so we do represent the great bulk of the active duty career Foreign Service people in our Government. We seek to represent the interests of the Foreign Service, but also to encourage use of the Foreign Service as a high-performance, flexi- ble instrument of the national interest and of foreign policy. The Foreign Service Act of 1979 is in part an attempt by manage- ment to respond to the concerns AFSA has raised in the past with management and the Congress about various problems of the Foreign Service. We have been discussing since December with management various proposals and successive drafts of this bill. And we have met people at the highest level of the Department of State and AID. We also have kept our membership, worldwide and in Washington, informed of the turn of events so far as we could, given the farflung nature of our Foreign Service on whom the Sun never sets. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 We received hundreds of telegrams, we have organized task forces and the election that I referred to which has just been completed pro- vided fuller occasion for debate of all the elements of this legislation. Servicewide consensus has developed in favor of a number of key elements reflected in the bill, either initially or as a result of our efforts: Reestablishment of the up-and-out principle; reaffirmation of the distinction between the Foreign Service and civil service; legislatively based labor-management relations; reduction or elimina- tion of excessive numbers of Foreign Service personnel categories; reestablishment in law of the Board of the Foreign Service. At the same time, a consensus developed in opposition to a number of elements in the earlier drafts of the bill, many of which have sub- sequently been removed or modified. Overriding the concern of the Foreign Service about specific elements of the management proposals has been our question as to the need to seek comprehensive legisla- tion. We believed that many of the problems of the Foreign Service could be addressed through existing authority and selected amend- ments to the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended. We were not alone in our concern. But despite our urgings and those of others more senior than we, the Secretary decided to submit the comprehensive Foreign Service Act of 1979 which is before you. Our position on the bill is, because of the strongly expressed con- cern of the career Foreign Service regarding such comprehensive legislation, AFSA does not today endorse this act. On the other hand, it does contain some provisions which would help the Foreign Service deal with its problems. We believe that the most useful service we can perform today for the Service and the Congress is to provide a detailed commentary on the bill, identifying provisions we approve as well as those we seek to change or wish to clarify in the legislative history. I would like to discuss some of the principal areas of interest to us: The uniqueness of the Foreign Service; up-or-out and performance; pay comparability; international development; the Foreiprn Service Staff Corps; protection of the career Service against political abuse; and legislated labor-management relations. We have submitted what we called our own section-by-section analysis. It is a comment on everything we thought was worth com- menting on in the draft bill and the bill's section-by-section analysis. I estimate it contains about 90 separate points of various character, some important and some less important, some supporting aspects of the bill, some critical and some asking for further clarification. Mr. FASCELL. Without objection. I gather this document is entitled "American Foreign Service Association Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill To Promote the Foreign Policy of the United States by Strengthening and Improving," et cetera? It is not dated. I guess we are talking about the same document? Mr. HYDE. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. It has 31 pages to it? Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Without objection we will make that analysis a part of the record. [The material referred to follows:] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION 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 TITLE I-THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF 1979 CHAPTER 1-GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 101 (a) (1) (p. 1, line 12)- After "to" insert "advise and * * *" Comment: This change would reflect the actual role of the career Foreign Service in giving advice on policy formulation and implementation. See also Sec. 104(4) below. Sec. 101 (a) (3) (p. 2, line 4)-Change to read : "(3) that the members of the Foreign Service should be * * *" Comment: This would conform more closely with the 1946 Act, which, as we read it, obligated each individual officer and employee to be representative of the American people, and to remain truly American rather than becoming too foreign or cosmopolitan. The legislative history should show that the require- ment that the Service be "representative" incorporates a requirement to seek to recruit, hire, and retain the best people from all sections of American society, specifically including those not currently proportionally represented in the Serv- ice, but not at the expense of merit principles, such as equal employment opportunity. See also Sec. 101(b) (2) below. Sec. 101(b) (2) (p. 2, line 25, to p. 3, line 8) Comment: The merit system principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b) (1) and (2) already apply to the Foreign Service. This is reaffirmed in Sec. 102(7) and a number of other places in the bill. The legislative history should make it clear that equal opportunity is meant regardless of political affiliation, sex, etc. Simi- larly, the reference to handicapping conditions should not be interpreted to require hiring of an employee who cannot meet the medical standards for career availability for worldwide assignment. See also Sec. 101(a) (2) above, and Sec. 301 (b) and (c) below. Sec. 101(b) (5) (p. 3, line 21) -After "minimize" insert "and compensate for***" Comment: The law should make it clear that where possible, tangible com- pensation should be provided to members of the Service for the extraordinary hardship and dangers they suffer. Sec. 104(4) (p. 8, line 10) -Add new paragraph (4) : "(4) advise the Secretary with respect to foreign policies which will best some the interests of the United States." Comment : See also Sec. 101(a) (1) above. CHAPTER 2-MANAGEMENT OF THE SERVICE Sec. 202(b) (p. 9, line 20)-Insert at end: "information officers, and, with respect to the International Development Co- operation Agency, be deemed to include references to Foreign Service development officers." Comment: In order to enhance compatibility among the foreign affairs agencies and the status of the international development function, the law should provide for the establishment of a Foreign Service Development Officer corps in IDCA, parallel with the FSO corps in State and the FSIO corps in USICA. The specific categories of Foreign Service personnel who would be so appointed could be worked out by subsequent regulation. AFSA has frequently testified in favor of the FSDO concept, most recently on May 2 before the House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Employee Ethics and Utilization in connection with AID'S "unified personnel system" proposal. See also Section 2105 below. Sec. 206 (pp. 12 to 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 mem- ber 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 Forign Serv- ice. Only those domestic agencies with government-wide responsibilities (OPM Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 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, independ- ent 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 Actor the Secretary's government-wide authority, but also initiate such advice. In forming its judgments, it should feel free to hear representatives of both agency management and the exclusive representative. See also Sees. 1201, CHAPTER 3-APPOINTMENTS Sec. 301(b) (p. 13, line 22 to p. 14, line 1) Comment: The analysis should make clear that the physical examination for a career Service available for worldwide assignment must be more rigorous than a physical examination for the Civil Service, and that Foreign Service medical standards should supersede the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act in cases of conflict. See also Sec. 101(b) (2) above, and Sec. 301(c) below. Sec. 30.1 (c) (p. 14, line 2) Comment: This subsection, which is substantially identical to existing law, should not be taken to permit or require waivers of high Foreign Service medical standards. The Board of Examiners should be continued. See also Sec. 101(b) (2) and Sec. 301(b) above. Sec. 302(b), (p. 15, lines 21-23) -Delete "and * * * Chapter 4" Comment: We approve of giving the SFS Member the option of receiving either the salary of his/her position or his/her SFS class, as well as post differential, if any. The deletion reflects our opposition to performance pay. See Sec. 441 and Sec. 2201. Sec. 311 (a) (1) (p. 16, line 17)-Add: "The President shall provide to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, 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." Comment: This provision will improve the Senate's ability to judge the qualifi- cations of a nominee, and deter the nominations of inadequately qualified persons. Sec. 311(a) (3) (p. 16, line 21) -Change to read : "(3) to the mas hnum practicable extent, career personnel * * *" Comment: This change parallels the language of Sec. 311(a) (1) with respect to the qualifications of a chief of mission and reflects the previously expressed sense of Congress (Sec. 120 (P.L. 94-350 (90 Stat. 829)) that "a greater number of posi- tions of ambassador should be occup`ed, by career personnel of the Foreign Serv- ice." The analysis for this paragraph and Sec. 311(b) (1) should emphasize the importance of considering senior Foreign Service personnel from USICA and IDCA, as well as State. See. 311(a) (2) (p. 16) and (b) (2) (pp. 17-18) Comment: The analysis should emphasize that the term "contribution" should encompass all forms of assistance to a poliltical campaign, including working in, providing services (e.g., advertising) to, or raising funds for, as well as a straight financial contribution to a campaign. Sec. 321 (p. 18, line 10)-Add: "excluding those currently serving as Presidential appointees to specific positions." Comment: Career SFS Members serving as Chiefs of Missions or Assistant and Under Secretaries do not thereby lose their career status as career SFS Members, but non-career appointees to those positions are not counted as SFS Members. Either the latter group should be counted within the 5 percent, or, most likely, these Presidential appointee positions and their incumbents should be excluded from the calculation. The 5 percent is a ceiling, not a minimum, quota, goal, target, or average. Sec. 323 (1) (p. 19, line 14) -Change to read : "the functional needs of the Service which cannot efficiently be filled from within the Service or, by a limited or temporary appointment; or * * *" Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Comment: This change would protect promotion and assignment opportunities for the career Service from lateral appointments not justified by the long-term needs of the Service for functional skills. Sec. 333 (b) (p. 22, line 2) -Delete "be consistent with * * * and replace with "not be used to avoid fulfilling * * *" and on line 3, 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, tempo- rary, or intermittent (PIT), for family members. Such action of creating 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 Sec. 401 (p. 23) Comment: We approve of this section, which essentially continues existing law. Since chiefs of mission, pursuant to Sec. 203, have full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all government officials and activities in the country, their positions should be classified according to the scale of such activities. The continued use of different pay levels for chiefs of mission recognizes the level of performance inherent in the requirements of a specific position. Sec. 421 (p. 24, line 8) -Delete "nine" Comment: We are reserving our position on the number of classes in the Foreign Service schedule, pending further review of the recently completed Con- gressionally-mandated study of Foreign Service compensation. Apart from that, we approve of the abolition of currently existing FS/GS pay links, establishment of the FS-1/GS-15 link, and establishment of a single Foreign Service pay plan replacing the two overlapping pay plans. Sec. 441 (pp. 25-28)-Delete. Comment: While we support pay comparability between the Senior Foreign Service and the Civil Service, we believe that performance pay as envisaged in Sec. 441 would not enhance SFS performance, and would be subject to abuses likely to undermine the integrity of the Service. The principal product of our senior Service is likely to be advice, and good advice may not be rewarded if it seems contrary to the current conventional wisdom of an Administration. We have supported continuation of Chief of Mission classification (Sec. 401) and full payment of post differential to Chiefs of Mission and other senior personnel at "hardship" posts (new Sec. 2206), as a tangible recognition of the level of performance inherent in a position or the circumstances in which it is carried out. In addition, we believe that Deputy Assistant Secretaries, or their equiva- lents in AID, should be compensated at Executive Level V, equal to Chief of 'Mission at a Class IV post, but at this time we do not have a specific legislative proposal. We are examining additional ways to encourage and reward perform- ance in the senior ranks. Sec.442 (p.28) Comment: We support this approach to rewarding performance, especially meritorious service, below the senior ranks. The analysis should refer to sub- standard rather than "mediocre" performance. Sec. 461 (p. 33, lines 13-15)-Delete "that portion * * * appropriate of * s *" Comment: In the name of equal pay for equal work, an officer temporarily serving as principal officer should receive the same pay as the officer permanently or formerly assgined to that position. Sec. 462 (p. 33, line 19) -Change "Allowances" to "Differential". Comment: The special allowance, unlike other allowances available to govern- ment 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. Sec. 462 (p. 33, lines 19-25) Comment: This authority was created last year "to mitigate the adverse impact on FSO's and FSIO's of the loss of premium pay pursuant to Section 412 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1978. We are seeking the repeal of Sec. 412, but we also have problems with the implementation of the special allowance. We ask that the legislative history indicate that : Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 128 50 hours per week is "in substantial excess of normal requirements" (the current regulation refers to 55) ; . there should be no upper limit imposed on the number of FSO's receiving special allowances (the current regulation refers to "approximately 100" in State) ; FSO's of all ranks should be eligible for the special allowance (FSO-3's, who will be FS-1's, are not) ; 25 percent of basic salary is a reasonable figure for the special allowance. (which now ranges from 12 to 18 percent) ; there should be no positions exempted (special assistants to Presidential appointees at Executive Level 3 and above are now ineligible to receive the special allowance) ; The Department should not take advantage of the inability of FSO's to receive premium pay by requiring them to work for periods in which work is not really essential (i.e. to hang around on weekends in care an Assistant Secretary may want them) or to avoid the need to adjust its workload or ask for more personnel when necessary to perform the Department's mission. See also (Sec. 2301 (3) below. See. 462 (p. 33, line 21) -After "authorized" insert "(a)", and line 25, add : "or (b) to Foreign Service personnel who are. required by the nature of their assignments to remain on call on a regular basis for substantial periods of time outside normal duty hours." Comment: Many Foreign Service personnel, especially secretaries and com- inunicators 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. CHAPTER 5-CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS Sec. 511(b) (1) (p. 34, line 25) -After "filled" insert "for a specified tour of duty * * " 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 a new person assigned to the position. Sec. 511(b) (1) (p. 35, line 3) -Insert "provided, that the number of such personnel shall not exceed the number of career personnel of the Service assigned pursuant to Sec. 521, and" Comment: The purpose of this change is to protect assignment and promotion opportunities of the Foreign Service, which are adversely affected when more non-Foreign Service people are occupying Foreign Service positions than vice versa. Sec. 521(a) (4) (p. 36, line 10) -Add : "A substantial number of Foreign Service officers shall be assigned for duty 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 indicate the sense of Congress that most FSO's should have such an assignment once after commissioning and before promotion to the SFS. Sec. 521(b)(1) (p. 36, line 12)-Insert "the higher of" before "the salary"; and in line 13. delete "irrespective of" and insert "or". Comment: This is consistent with existing law, and with the concept of equal pay for equal work which is part of merit system principles. Sec. 531 (p. 37) Comment: We applaud Sec. 531(a) as a reaffirmation of the principle of avail- ability for worldwide assignment in the Service. We would expect to negotiate an agreement on any regulation limiting assignments within the U.S., and pro- cedures for extensions of the eight-year limit. We also approve of paragraph (b). However, there are some specialties, e.g., secretaries and communicators, in which there are not enough positions in Washington for th`s objective to be met because so many of these positions are classified as "Civil Service". We urge that the legislative history provide that there should be enough positions classified Foreign Service in Washington in all Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 129 categories so that at least those career personnel in all categories who want to serve in Washington for one tour every 15 years will be able to do so. Sec. 532 (p. 38, line 7) -Insert new Section: "Section 532 Leave Without Pay. Consistent with the needs of the Service, the Secretary shall establish regu- lations which enable career members of the Service to be granted leave with- out pay." Comment: Our purpose is to establish that leave without pay is a good thing, so as to broaden the experience of a career member of the Foreign Service and therefore his or her usefulness to the Service. CHAPTER 6-PROMOTION AND RETENTION Sec. 602 (pp. 39-40) Comment: We approve of the concept in paragraph (a) that a member of the Service must request consideration for promotion to the Senior Foreign Service. We do not object to the "threshold window" concept in the last sentence of paragraph (a), provided that: the exclusive representative will be able to negotiate the time-in-class (TIC) for new FS-1, as well as the number of years in the threshold win- dow during which one may be considered for promotion ; in All/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; We strongly support subsection (b). This concept was implicit in the 1946 Act, and explicit in its legislative history. Its reaffirmation in this Act will strengthen the ability to use discretionary authority in the Act to make sure that promotion opportunities are reasonably adequate and stable from year to year, thus reducing the risks of deciding when to request consideration for pro- motion to the SFS. The exclusive representative must be able to co-determine the application of this authority from year to year. We support subsection (c) for the reasons indicated in the section-by-section analysis. Sec. 603 (p. 40) Comment: The legislative history should show that the composition of selection boards, and the precepts under which they function, should continue to be sub- ject to negotiation and agreement with the exclusive representative. Sec. 603(2) (p. 40, line 17)-Delete "performance pay under Section 441(c)" and insert "within-class salary increases under section 442." Comment: Sec. 442 noes refer to the role of selection boards ; this appears to be an oversight in Sec. 603 (2). See also Sec. 441 above. Sec. 612(a) (p. 41, line 1)-After "Dependability" insert "usefulness", and lines 2-7 delete everything after "Service" in subsection (b). 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 rec- ords of prospective assignments for SFS members might be subject to abuse. We support subsection (b), in its reference to the qualities required of the Senior Foreign Service. Area expertise and various functional skills continue to be extremely important at senior levels of the Foreign Service, along with managerial and policy formulation capabilities. Sec. 641 (pp. 43-45) Comment: We support this concept, including the explicit reference to the possibility of limits on time-in-class or a combination of classes, the extension of TIC to what is now the career minister level and to other Foreign Service personnel categories, the possibility of either increasing or decreasing TIC, and the limited extensions of career appointments, to be determined in individ- ual cases pursuant to recommendations of a selection board ; provided that, all of these regulations must be negotiated with the exclusive employee representa- tive, to maintain the confidence of the Service that this authority will not be abused, either because of external political or budgetary considerations or in- ternal cronyism. In AID, circumstances are different, and TIC must be established very carefully and gradually, only by agreement with the exclusive represent- ative. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Sec. 642 (p 45, line 8)-Delete "Relative" and insert "Failure to Meet Stand- ards Of". 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 annuities should be extended below age 50 or new FS class one, or the legisla- tion should not be written so as to prejudice the negotiations on performance standards precepts. On the other hand, we would have no problem with retire- ment 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. CHAPTER 7-FOREIGN SERVICE INSTITUTE, CAREER DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND ORIENTATION General comment: This chapter reaffirms in substance advances in training for family members in recent amendments to the 1946 Act. AFSA has supported these amendments, but now finds that the new authority is being applied, in an era of limited resources, to give priority to family members over employees, notably staff corps employees. We strongly urge that the legislative history provide that training for family members is to be provided, pursuant to sec. 701(b) "in addition" to training for members of the Service, not instead. Sec. 704(a) (p. 54, lines 6 and 10)-Delete "orientation and language"; lines 7 and 9, after "to" insert "members of the Service and * * *" Comment: The Secretary should have the authority to compensate for costs related to all forms of training authorized and approved under this Chapter. Sec. 704(b) (line 18) -Amend to read : "If a member of the Service or a member of the family of a member of * * *" Comment: Sec. 703(4) provides for grants to personnel assigned or detailed for language training. It does not, however, provide for unusual situations, direct transfers, which may necessitate training on the employee's own time. This is precisely the authority being established for family members, and we feel it should be extended to career personnel. Sec. 705(b) (2) and (3) (p. 55, lines 14 and 17) -Delete "overseas". Comment: The peripatetic life of Foreign Service spouses creates difficulties for spouses not only in finding overseas jobs, but also in maintaining in the United States adequate contacts and knowledge of the job market to pursue a career which they may have to do if their spouse is assigned or retires in the U.S., or they are separated by death or divorce. Removing the "overseas" constraint on employment assistance for spouses would also enable management to integrate more fully the career counseling provided to members of the Service under subsection (a) and to their spouses under subsection (b). CHAPTER 8-FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM Sec. 803(a) (p. 56, line 7) Comment: We believe this definition of participants is an improvement over present legislation by covering all employees who have entered the Foreign Serv- ice for a career including such limited appointment employees as the career candidate junior officer (sec. 322(a)) and employees who have exhausted their time-in-class and are subject to mandatory retirement but continue to serve on the basis of a selection board recommendation (Sec. 641(b) ). Sec. 821(c) (2) (p. 68, line 14) -Revise to read : "If an annuitant dies and is survived not by a spouse but by a child or children, an annuity equal to the ma.Timum 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 he 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 surviv- ing relative may reside in a foreign country. We recommend that the annuity schedule for surviving orphan children be increased under the above formula. Sec. 831 (p. 75, line 18) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Comment: We have no specific recommendations concerning this section but are concerned by its applicability in the case of an employee who was handicapped at the time of first employment and who later applies for disability retirement on the basis of the same handicapping condition. Sec. 835 (p. 84, lines 9 and 10)-Delete the words "and with the consent of the Secretary". Comment: When an employee becomes eligible for voluntary retirement, the employee should have full fredom to decide when to retire. There is no justifica- tion that the employee be placed in a condition of "involuntary servitude" and be required to continue to work in the Foreign Service at the pleasure of the Secretary. Sec. 886(b) (p. 84, lines 24 and 25)-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. Sec. 887 (p. 85) 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 not just chief of mission appointments. Sec. 872 (a) (p. 100, lines 16, 17, and 18) -Amend to read : "not to exceed during any calendar year the basic salary the member would be entitled to receive under this Act if currently 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(2) (p. 106, line 13)-Amend to read "required leave in the United States." Comment: The revised wording reflects the choice of words in Sec. 911, p. 112. Sec. 901(3) (p. 106, lines 16, 17, and 18) -Place a semicolon after the word "duty" in line 16 and delete all the remaining words in the subsection. Comment: There are a variety of situations when an employee may be given temporary duty away from home. The Secretary should have flexibility in de- termining by regulation when and under what conditions family members may, at government expense, accompany, precede, or follow any employee placed on temporary duty. The deleted words impose an unnecessary restriction on the Secretary's authority. Sec. 901 (p. 106, line 19) After subsection 901(3), add a new subsection "(4)" and renumber all succeeding subsections. The new subsection (4) to read: "(4) transporting the personal effects and privately owned automobile, when- ever the travel of the employee is occasioned by changes in the seat of the gov- ernment whose capital is his or her post." Comment: This new section incorporates the purpose served by Sec. 911(6) of the old Act. In at least one country today, the seat of government shifts locations every six months and some employees in the mission have to follow along in order to continue their responsibilities. Sec. 901(11) (p. 109, line 20)-Amend to read "transporting and clearing through foreign customs the furniture * * *" Comment: Many foreign countries impose customs duties and local taxes on employees' authorized shipment of furniture and household and personal effects. This is especially onerous in the case of employees who are not commissioned diplomatic or consular officers. Under some circumstances, the Vienna Diplo- matic or Consular Convention may give protection. However, all too often host governments impose -custom duties and other taxes on shipments of staff per- sonnel's belongings even though the shipment is authorized and paid for by the United States Government. This amendment relieves the employee from the burden of such foreign government custom duties and taxes (See Sec. 901(13) ). Sec. 901(13) (p. 111, line 4)-Amend to read "transporting and clearing through foreign customs, notwithstanding * * *" Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Comment: This amendment is similar to that proposed for Sec. 901(11). Many host governments impose custom duties and taxes on automotive vehicles owned by non-commissioned employees which effectively prohibit the employee from importing and using his or her privately owned car. Pending the time when relief can be obtained by means of a negotiated agreement, the employee should not have to bear the burden of such expenses. All employees should have similar privileges for owning and using their own cars. CHAPTER 10-LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS General comment: We believe that labor relations in the Foreign Service should generally parallel those in the Civil Service under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act, except that the bargaining unit should continue to parallel our current system under Executive Order 11636. Sec. 1001(3) (p. 116, lines 16-19)-Delete "The provisions of the chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient government." Comment: This phrase has been added at the last moment, apparently at the insistence of OMIB. If it is not simply meaningless and redundant, it appears intended to cast doubt on the flat statement in the previous sentence that "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 OMB amendment has no parallel in Title VII. Sec. 1002 (5) (p. 118, lines 10-12) -Change to read : "official (except an individual who assists in a purely clerical capacity or management official who is not engaged in the administration." Line 15-Delete ")" Comment : This would make the definition of confidential employee the same as in Executive Order 11636, under which it has worked well. See also Sec. 1041 (e) below. Sec. 1002(9) (D) (p. 120, lines 6-7)-Delete "work stoppage or slowdown" Comment: Amended to conform with Title VII, Sec. 7103(a) (4) (D) of the Civil Service Reform Act. Sec. 1002(10) (E) (p. 120, lines 24-25)-Delete and reletter subsequent subparagraph. Comment : Inspectors have not been so defined under Executive Order 11630, and there is no reason why they should be under this Chapter. See also Sec. 1041(e) below. Sec. 1008-Delete "(a)" p. 121, lines 10-20; reletter succeeding paragraph. Comment: This paragraph is unnecessary in the light of the subsequent para- graph. The section-by-section analysis should reflect the fact that no agency head has felt the need to suspend any provision of Executive Order 11636 with respect to any element of his agency since the Order took effect in 1971, a period which has included several wars, evacuations, and other emergency situations. See. 1005(a) (1) (p. 122, line 25) -Delete "of types and classes". Comment: Amended to conform to Title VII, Sec. 7106 of Civil Service Reform Act. Types and classes are negotiable at management's option under paragraph (b) of this section. We believe the inclusion of these words may have been an editing oversight. Sec. 1005(a) (2) (p. 123, line 3) -Delete "promote". Comment: This parallels Title VII, Sec. 7106 of Civil Service Reform Act. There should be no implication that promotion procedures are not negotiable ; we have been doing so under Executive Order 11636 for several years. Sec. 1011 (p. 124, line 21-22)-Amend to read : "* * * each agency and the exclusive representative for each bargaining unit," Comment: The revised wording clarifies and reinforces the concept of equal- ity between the agency and the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit in that agency. Sec. 1014 (a) (p. 129, lines 14-17)-Delete all after "include"', line 19, change to read "and [one] two members who [is] are not [an] employees of the * * *" Sec. 1014(c) (p. 130, lines 22-23) -Delete "or the Secretary finds that the Panel's action is contrary to the best interests of the Service." Comment: Title VII makes arbitral awards final. The section-by-section anal- ysis for Sec. 1014(e) does not even attempt to explain why the Secretary and other foreign affairs agency heads would need authority which is not granted to other Department and agency heads. Even when such authority is never in- voked, as it has not been under Executive Order 11636, it can skew collective bargaining by making management negotiators more intransigent and unrea- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 sonable. It has been argued that the Disputes Panel, which includes two mem- bers of the bargaining unit, should not be allowed to make final decisions. We would accept a Disputes Panel composed of one FSIP member and two pri- vate members, in exchange for finality. Sec. 1022 (p. 134, line 14) -Delete " (1) " ; delete lines 16-22. Comment: Experience with Executive Order 11636 has not indicated the need to exclude categories (2) and (3) from the bargaining unit. We support a single, agency-wide, worldwide bargaining unit. Our ran-in-person, highly mo- bile system and the fact that most of our conditions of employment are of broad applicability argues against any attempt to balkanize the bargaining unit ac- cording to post or bureau, rank, or personnel category. One can deal with those conditions of employment with narrower scope through the internal delega- tion of authority within the exclusive employee representative. Sec. 1023(b) (1) (A) (p. 135, line 13)-After "concerning" insert "any griev- ance or"; lines 15-18, delete all after "practices." Comment: The amended language parallels Title VII, Sec. 7114 (a) (2) of the Civil Service Reform Act. Otherwise it would be inconsistent with the role of the exclusive representative in grievances in Chapter 11. Sec. 1023 (d) (2) (p. 136, line 22) -Delete "appropriate." Comment: We seek to parallel Title VII, Sec. 7114(b) (2) of the Civil Serv- ice Reform Act. Sec. 1002(4) already defines conditions of employment; no further modifier is apropriate. Sec. 1031(b) (7) (A) (p. 152, line 21) -Delete "in the United States" Comment: Title VII, Sec. 7116(b) of the Civil Service Reform Act does not flatly prohibit informational picketing overseas. We would prefer to be guided by case law being developed by the FLRA. Sec. 1041(e) (pp. 147-148) Comment: This subsection, which parallels Section 1(b) of Executive Order 11636, provides adequate protection to both management and employees against any real or apparent conflict of interest on the part of any employee other than a management official or confidential employee in specific circumstances. Hence, further exclusions from the bargaining unit are unnecessary. See also Sec. 1002(5) and (10) (E), 1003(a), 1022(2) and (3) above. Sec. 041(f) (p. 148, lines 9-10) -Delete "prohibited picketing" ; lines 17- 18, delete all after "action". Comment: Amended to parallel Title VII, Sec. 7120(f) of the Civil Service Reform Act. We believe that revocation of exclusive recognition would be too harsh a penalty for prohibited picketing, and that there be no penalty in addi- tion to revocation. Sec. 1051(c) (p. 149) -After line 17, insert: "* * * alleging that -10 percent of the employees in the Department have mem- bership in the organization." Comment: Amended to parallel Title VII, Sec. 7115(c) of the Civil Service Reform Act. CHAPTER 11-GRIEVANCES Sec. 1101(a) (1) (p. 151, line 24)-Delete "involuntary". Comment: A challenge to separation from the Service for the reasons stated should be clearly grievable without leaving room for argument concerning whether the individual's separation was "involuntary" if, for example, the em- ployee were to resign or retire pending disciplinary action. See. 1101 (a) (1) (p. 152, line 2)-After "prejudicial" insert "character of * * *" Comment: The revised wording is clearer and more closely adheres to that in the present legislation. It is the character of the information which can be so onerous if "falsely prejudicial," rather than the information itself. Sec. 1101(a)(7) (p. 152, line 23) -After "alleged" add "arbitrary or capri- cious***" Comment: Consistent with current law, the provision should be clear in its coverage of cases where an allowance or financial benefit has been denied arbi- trarily or capriciously even if permissible under the letter of the applicable statute. Sec. 1102 (p. 154, line 7) -Insert " (1) or (7)". Comment: Employees separated from the Service should have the same oppor- tunity to raise a grevance with respect to separation, in terms of the timeframe within which a complaint may be raised, as an employee within the Service has with respect to all other grievable matters by the terms of Sec. 1104. Sec. 1103 (b) (p. 154, lines 18-21) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Comment: This section departs from the current legislation and practice by allowing a grievant who is in the bargaining unit to be represented only by the exclusive representative organization, which may approve the participation in the proceedings by an additional person on the grievant's behalf. Heretofore, a griev- ant has had full freedom in choosing who and under what circumstances he or she will be represented. AFSA is aware that this will impose a new workload on its limited resources. We are also aware that a grievant may want to advance an argument or seek a relief which is contrary to AFSA policy. AFSA did not seek a monopoly of griev- ance representation; only to be present at all grievance proceedings, the result of which may affect general conditions of employment. Sec. 1104(c) and 1112(2) below. Sec. 1103(b) (p. 155, line 3) -Add after "choosing": "However, the exclusive representative of members of the Service in the agency in which the employee serves or served shall have the right to be present during the grievance proceedings." Comment: The Foreign Service Grievance Board on occasion must interpret the meaning or intent of agency regulations which derive from agreements be- tween the agency and the exclusive representative. The exclusive representative is a necessary party in any such grievance and it is important that the bill en- able it to protect its interests. Sec. 1103(d) (p. 155, lines 13 and 14)-Amend to read: "* * * Grievance Board shall assure that * * *" Comment: This provision should be mandatory rather than permissive. Sec. 1104 (a) (p. 156, line 11)-Amend to read "or such other period as * * *" Comment: The agency and exclusive representative should have flexibility to negotiate not only a shorter period but also a longer period if necessary to meet some special or unique circumstances. Sec. 1104(c) (p. 157, line 25 to page 158, line 1) -Delete "who is not a member of such bargaining unit." Comment: Consistent with present legislation, a grievant should have the right to appeal on his or her own behalf. However, the exclusive representative should have the right to be present at all proceedings (see Sec. 1103(b) above and Sec. 1112(2) below). See. 1111(b) (p. 158, lines 1 and 2)-Amend to read: "* * * each agency and the exclusive representative for each bargaining unit 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. Sec. 1112(2) (p. 160, line 4)-After "senatives," insert "the exclusive repre- sentative," Comment: The exclusive representative should be present at all hearings in- volving members of the Foreign Service, even if not in the bargaining unit, in the agency in which it is the representative of the Foreign Service, See also Sec. 1103(b) and 1104(c) above. See. 1113(0) (p. 164, lines 20 and 21)-Place a period after the number "1141" and delete the remaining words in the subsection. Comment: The reference to subsection (d) of the same section is redundant and unnecessary. CHAPTER 12-CoMPATIBILITY OF PERSONNEL SYSTEMS Sec. 1201 (p. 168, line 12)-After "through" insert "The Board of the Foreign Service and * * *" Sec. 1203 (p. 170, line 12)-Add "and the Board of the Foreign Service." Sec. 1204 (p. 170, line 23)-Add "and the Board of the Foreign Service." Comment: This would appear to be consistent with the role envisaged for the Board of the Foreign Service in Sec. 206, above. TITLE II-TRANSITION, AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS, REPEALS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1-TRANSITION Sec. 2101 (b) (p. 173, line 16) -Delete ["availability"] and amend to read "* * * for worldwide assignment shall also * * *" Comment: This corrects what is apparently a typographical error. Sec. 2101(c) (p. 173, line 24) -Insert new subsection "(c)" : Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 "(c) Any Foreign Service oftcer candidate currently serving who at the time of original appointment met the new criteria for appointment at class 4, shall be immediately promoted to 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. 2102 (f) (p. 176, line 21-23) -Delete ["shall not be eligible to compete for performance pay under Sec. 41 of such Act, and"] Comment: See Sec. 441 above. Sec. 2103 (pp. 177-178) Comment: We support Sec. 2103 as the best available way to make the transi- tion to the Civil Service. While the ICA-AFGE agreement for voluntary conver- sion was a good arrangement under the terms available in 1978 when it took ef- fect, the cleanest way to make the distinction between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service is through mandatory conversion. The three-year transition period and the provisions of Sec. 2104 for preservation at the employee's option of Foreign Service status and benefits is an appropriate way to ease the transi- tion for domestic-oriented Foreign Service employees to the Civil Service. Sec. 2104(c) line 14) -Change "five" to "ten"; line 18, delete ["and j line 21, add "; and (3) who are not eligible for retirement benefits in accordance with Section 821." Comment: We support the extension of retirement for substandard 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 retirement with an im- mediate annuity, but who are not yet in FSSO Class 1 or age 50 with 20 years' service. It would be harsh to apply selection out to them, particularly to secre- taries who find it very difficult to start a second career after age 40, and particu- larly 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 im- mediate annuity. This would apply to AID Foreign Service Staff Corps Members as well. Sec. 2105 (new 2106) (p. 181, lines 22-23)-delete ["under the direction of the President"]. Comment: There should be no doubt that the Secretary (and other foreign af- fairs agency heads) have the discretionary authority to prescribe implementing transitional regulations-and therefore, the obligation to negotiate these regula- tions with the exclusive employee representative. We would be particularly in- terested in negotiations on procedures for the determination of worldwide avail- ability, pursuant to Sec. 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. Sec. 2201(a) (p. 186) -Insert a new subsection "(4)" and renumber succeed- ing subsections: "(4) Sec. 27 Exemption from Foreign Customs Duties and Local Taxes. The Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps, including the negotia- tion of bilateral and multilateral agreements, necessary to carry out fully the provisions of the Vienna 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 Serv- ice for those customs duties and local taxes which the member has paid despite the protection accorded by the appropriate Vienna convention." Comment: The Vienna Conventions extend to non-commissioned 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 compliance with the Conven- tions have always been time-consuming and all to often unsuccessful. The pur- pose of this new section is to reinforce the Department's determination to force other governmental compliance and to authorize reimbursement of disadvantaged employees, and to place the Department's obligation in this regard on an equal basis with its obligation to bargain for employment for family members. If other Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 136 countries are not willing to accord the internationally recognized privileges, im- munities, and employment opportunities, the Secretary should withdraw any such benefits from the country in question. Sec. 2206 (p. 20, 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 Federal Executive Salary Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312). Comment: 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 in- volves 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 missions 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 apparently adopted in the belief that chiefs of mission receive sufficient other forms of comren~atlon and that their authority would he threatened if their salary were less than the salary plus post differential paid to subordinate emplnyees. AFSA believes these regulatory restrictions are unfair and anachronistic. The full amount of allowed post differential should be paid to all governmental em- ployees 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. Employee. 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 sub- ordinate 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 "differ- ential post" mission. The outstanding officer thus has an incentive to accept the less challenging assignment. 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 3-REPEALS Sec. 2301(3) (p. 201, 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 en- ables the Department. by overworking its FSO's, to cut its costs and avoid re- questing 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, Sund"y. 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 the provsion. See also Sec. 462 above. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 CHAPTER 4-SEVERARILITY, SAVING PROVISION, REPORTS AND EFFECTIVE DATE Sec. 2402 (p. 203) -After line 9 insert: "(including recognition of any organization of Foreign Service officers and employees in the Agency for International Development as the es;clusive repre- sentative of employees in the International Development Cooperation Agency)." Comment: IDCA is being touted as not just a "successor agency" to AID, within the meaning of Executive Order 11636, but a superagency of which AID is only one element. We want to make sure that the status of the current exclu- sive representative of AID Foreign Service people, and thus its ability to pro- tect the interests of the AID Foreign Service in the coming transition, is not adversely affected either by the IDCA reorganization plan or this bill. Sec. 2402 (line 16)-Delete ["on January 1, 1980"] and insert "three months following the date of its enactment." Comment: A three-month delay in the effective date, which was used both in the Foreign Service Act of 1946 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, is more realistic than the January 1980 date, and would allow sufficient time to begin planning the transition. Mr. HYDLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the uniqueness of the Foreign Service, we believe that the Foreign Service is necessarily unique and different from the civil service because it responds to the Nation's need for a qualified career service available worldwide, including the United States. There- fore we welcome the act's reaffirmation of this concept in section 531. We support the provision under sections 2103 and 2104 for conversion to the civil service with the option of preserved Foreign Service status and benefits, as the most rapid way to eliminate the anomalous "FS domestic-only" category while protecting the rights of persons in that category. With respect to the subject of up-or-out and performance, promo- tions in the service have stagnated in the Foreign Service in recent years because of the lack of attrition at the top. The principal proposal in the bill to restore attrition from and promotion to the senior ranks, and thereby enhance performance, is the Senior Foreign Service. Many of us oppose the label Senior I+ oreign Service, finding it too much like the senior executive service, and likely to promote unnec- essary distinction or division within a service that has always prided itself on a large measure of collegiality among its members of all ranks. But when one looks beyond the label, there is much that is familiar to those who know the senior ranks of our Foreign Service. Mandatory retirement at 60 and retirement with immediate annuity at 50 with 20 years' service are retained. In addition, retirement for excessive time- in-class and for substandard performance are extended to the top rank, presently Career Minister, as well as to additional personnel categories now subject to them. Retirement for failure to be reassigned is extended from chiefs of mission to all Presidential appointees to specific positions and there is a new limited career extension which management intends to couple with shorter time-in-class at the senior level. If used properly, these mechanisms will stabilize and improve promotion opportunities throughout the Service, pursuant to section 602(b). We approve of all of these provisions so long as they are implemented rationally and Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 fairly, by agreement with the exclusive representative, so as to give the Service confidence that no administration can manipulate them to create excessive insecurity, punish candid internal "whistle- blowers" or critics, or reward sycophancy or cronyism in the senior ranks. 0 Pay comparability-equal pay for equal work-is a hallowed prin- ciple for AFSA, as it is for the Congress. In recent years our FSO corps has fallen behind comparable GS personnel. Perhaps the first FSO to draw attention to this problem was a junior officer named Jim Leach, through a landmark study of the problem in 1971. Although Mr. Leach resolved his own personal problem of pay comparability with the civil service, we know he retains a sympa- thetic interest in the problem. We have continued to work at it. An AFSA-initiated, congressionally mandated study, just completed by Hay Associates, confirms that FSO's have long been underpaid, and tends to support current Foreign Service staff corps pay levels against criticism that they have been too high. The bill does not in itself implement the Hay study findings, but makes it possible to do so. We support section 421, which establishes a single Foreign Service pay schedule with the link between new FS-1 and GS-15 in place of the old two pay plans with obsolete links to the general schedule. In discussions with the executive branch, we are supporting a 12- grade, 10-step schedule identical to the general schedule between grades 15 and 4. We have here our expert, Bill Veale, who did not make the front table, who is available to discuss this in further detail, and we also prepared a statement which was prepared just today, and we have several copies. If you will tell us what to do with them, we will give them to the appropriate staff members of the committee. At the senior level we strongly support pay comparability between the Senior Foreign Service and the senior executive service. Section 411 does this with respect to basic rates of pay. We favor the continuation of post classification of chiefs of mission provided in section 401 because it reflects and rewards the level of performance required by a particular ambassadorship. We believe chiefs of mission and other senior personnel should also receive the taxable post differential (often called "hardship pay") authorized under 5 U.S.C. 5925, but withheld from them by regulation. We sus- pect the Department would like to do this but the Office of Manage- ment and Budget has ordered them not to do it because of the budget- ary implications. All we can say is if the Department is unwilling or unable to provide hardship pay for senior officers, thus recognizing the difficulty under which one performs one's duties at a hardship post, then it is difficult to imagine any money actually would be avail- able for a newer concept such as performance pay. In any case we oppose the concept of performance pay patterned after the SES and contained in section 441. We believe that a recom- mendation by a supervisor to a selection board could be abused to insure conformity with a current policy line. In addition to post differential, we would recommend that the posi- tion of Deputy Assistant Secretary, or its equivalent in State or Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 IDCA/AID, be compensated at executive level 5. Beyond that, we regret we are unable at this point to make any specific proposals, other than the lifting of the executive level pay cap, which would insure pay comparability, and reward and encourage good perform- ance, without being subject to abuse. If we can think of anything, we will be in touch with you. We believe our successors on the governing board will think about this further and come back to you should new ideas arise. With respect to International Development, we say together with the unified personnel system submitted by the administration in May, and the reorganization plan establishing the International Develop- ment Cooperation Administration (IDCA), this bill establishes as a matter of law and national policy the Nation's long-term commitment to international development carried out in Washington and overseas primarily by a qualified, disciplined career Foreign Service. We advocated the establishment of a Foreign Service Development officers corps parallel to the FSO Corps in the Department of State and the FSIO Corps in the ICA. On the other hand too much compatibility too soon would make bad policy with respect to AID people. Somebody told me the average grade of AID people is FSR-3 and the time in class is 7 years. This is because of the enormous reduction in the numbers of AID people that we have needed over the last decade and the application of reduc- tions in force to achieve these reductions, so it would make no sense to suddenly apply time-in-class in AID where it has not been applied before. You would simply be getting rid of the people who may be still the best people at their rank in the Foreign Service. Any application of these concepts of time-in-class and substandard performance to AID would have to be done through full consent of the Foreign Service expressed through its exclusive representative. The Foreign Service Staff Corps is vital to the functioning of the Foreign Service. For example, secretaries and communicators are stay- ing on top of the exponential increase in the Government's production of words through their mastery of the latest word-processing tech- nology. Yet the Staff Corps suffers from a lack of status. We have identified some reasons why this is so. Their career pros- pects have been blighted in recent years by difficulties in changing to more promising career fields, and other reasons. We are addressing some of these problems under existing legislative authority but the bill itself does not do much to correct or address these problems and there- fore the Staff Corps has little enthusiasm for it. However, the creation of a single Foreign Service Schedule abolish- ing FSS is welcome. It will prevent future 'unearned promotions through pay-plan switching, and facilitate career specialty changes. The whole Foreign Service, including the Staff Corps, welcomes the extention to the Staff Corps of such performance-related concepts as the career candidate appointment and tenuring process (sec. 322) and retirement for excessive time-in-class (sec. 641) or substandard per- formance. There needs however to be a longer transition period than is envisioned by the bill. We urged a 10-year transition before actually retiring people who are selected out for substandard performance but who are not eligible for immediate annuity under the concept of 50 years with 20 years service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 We have mentioned a number of other proposals which we would like to see added to the bill or legislative history which would benefit the Staff Corps. With respect to protection of the career Service, we have frequently complained about the appointment of excessive numbers of noncareer chiefs of mission, many of them unqualified; substantial numbers of schedule C or otherwise noncareer appointments in Washington, and easy lateral entry into the career Service itself of those enjoying politi- cal patronage or whose skills are already in ample supply within the Service. There actions are bad for the career Service and contrary to the na- tional interest because they reduce career promotions and assignment opportunities, and make the career track the slow track to success in the foreign affairs agencies. This harms morale and performance within and recruitment into the Service. We have identified some areas in which this bill does improve the existing situation and areas in which we think still further improve- ments are desirable. The association regards chapter 10, which deals with labor-manage- ment relations, as the most important chapter in the bill. With or with- out a full new Foreign Service Act, this chapter should be enacted as quickly as possible, with the amendments indicated in our detailed comments. We mentioned a few perfecting amendments that are needed to as- sure full parity between bargaining rights enjoyed by Service people under the Civil Service Reform Act and Foreign Service people under this legislation. In addition we want to emphasize very strongly we favor the single worldwidh, agencywide bargaining unit in our current Executive Order 11636, which continues in section 1022. As indicated by the rest of the bill, our conditions of employment include worldwide assign- ment, and most of our personnel policies are applicable worldwide. Only local working conditions and the local applicability of world- wide policies might be logical subjects for local collective bargaining, and those can be handled, as now, through discussions at post or bu- reaus with reference to Washington in case of disagreement. Some have suggested that the different personnel categories could have separate bargaining units, but this would only weaken the em- ployees' bargaining power; the whole would be less than the sum of its parts, and management would no doubt claim that agencywide per- sonnel policies were not negotiable. Such balkanization would be con- trary to the American and worldwide trend toward industrial unions, capable of aggregating and representing the various interests among the workers tl''ey represent. AFSA does this through systems of sub- committees dealing with special interests and with ad hoc problems. We also favor a bargaining unit as large as possible, with narrow exclusions of "confidential" employees and of "management officials." We believe that the Executive Order 11636 has worked well in this respect. We have seen no evidence presented by the Department in its testimony or in its section-by-section analysis in support of reducing the bargaining unit, taking bites out of the bargaining unit as is pro- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 posed. It could be worse, but we don't see the necessity for any expan- sion of the exclusions of the bargaining unit. According to my information in the Department of State under the present Executive order, 850 people out of about 9,000 are excluded. Proposed legislation would exclude 1,200. Those who advocate using the title VII bargaining unit have to face up to the fact that some estimates indicate that 5,800 people would be excluded. That is more than half of the Foreign Service. It goes way down to the junior ranks because we have a lot of foreign national employees that we super- vise overseas in consular and administrative units and in AID pro- grams, for example, and this definition of supervisors, if it were ap- p1.ed as it exists in the Civil Service Reform Act, it would gut the bar- gaining unit. So we believe the burden of proof is on those who want to reduce the bargaining unit compared with what has worked well under Executive Order 11636. Mr. FASCELL. Will you stop here before I get any more confused. The 850 reduction you are talking about is represented by what is in the bill in terms of additional exclusions? Mr. HYDLE. No, Mr. Chairman. My information is that under the present- Mr. FASCELL. It would go to 1,200-some? Mr. HYDLE. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Those are additional exclusions in this bill? Mr. HYDLE. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. Where does the 5,800 come from? Mr. HYDLE. That is a projection of what would happen if we were forced to go back to parallel title VII, Civil Service Reform Act and exclude what are defined as supervisors. Mr. FASCELL. That goes to the testimony Mr. Koczak just gave us. Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir. Apart from its inherent merits, chapter 10 is important to us because it enables us to bargain with agency management on the application of the authority over conditions of employment provided elsewhere in the bill, including, but not limited to, the following : The composition of selection boards and the precepts under which they prepare their recommendations; _ How to fill available promotion numbers; that is, how many pro- motions and how many career extensions ; Procedures for granting tenure; Procedures for determining availability for worldwide assignment; that is, in connection with chapter 1 of title II, and other assignment procedures; The application of section 641 and 642 authority to AID and to other personnel categories which have not had it in the past. We believe that chapter 10 provides the exclusive representative with the ability to bargain on these issues, and more, to protect the career Service from arbitrary abuse of the other authorities in the act. We have made crystal clear to the Secretary and other management officials that we must have that ability to bargain. Some management officials may believe, or hope, that matters such as changes in time-in-class are within their sole discretion. As I said, we believe they are wrong, but if that is indeed their hope, they are Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 simply living in an earlier, less enlightened, harsher age of labor rela- tions. The career Foreign Service will not tolerate any abuse of the authority in the act. We ask the Congress to help avoid such an abuse. If abuse were attempted either we would be able to stop it through the mechanisms of chapter 10 or else we would have to come running back to Congress and complain about the abuse of authority. I suggest that it is in the interest of the Congress which has an enormous workload to make it clear in the legislative history that the kinds of things that I have mentioned are subject to collective bargaining. I think I would like to conclude the prepared remarks and before we go to questions, in answer to the one question that the chairwoman asked I would like to invite my successor President-elect Bleakley to make a brief statement. STATEMENT OF KENNETH BLEAKLEY, PRESIDENT-ELECT, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION Mr. BLEAKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Kenneth Bleakley. I will assume the presidency of AFSA next month. Mr. Hydle, president of the American Foreign Service Association, has spoken for the women and men of the Foreign Service. Speaking as the president-elect, I ran on a platform which sought reform through administrative change, rather than through a new Foreign Service Act, but which stated, that should the Department submit its legislative proposals, we would support what we can, en- courage amendment where needed and seek to block counterproductive amendments. The position taken by the current AFSA president today is con- sistent with that approach. We therefore are quite comfortable in hav- ing Mr. Hydle testify on behalf of all the women and men of the Foreign Service today. If I might add Just one personal comment-if there is a single thing which unites the Foreign Service it is our belief in the need for a sepa- rate and distinct Foreign Service to serve our country. There has never been a time in our Nation's history when it has been more important for the United States to live by its wits abroad. Certainly we will con- tinue to need dedicated civil servants willing to go abroad for short periods of time to serve our Nation in various specialities; but, if ever there was a time we needed integrated skills and the crosscultural relationships that a Foreign Service officer manages to establish in a disciplined career, this is the time for it. So I hope, as you look at this very important piece of legislation, you will keep in mind, as demonstrated by your presence here today; that what we are talking about does matter, and that there is a real and genuine need for a unified Foreign Service. That was the message which our membership delivered to Mr. Hydle just a couple of hours ago when it voted over 10 to 1 to support the general outlines of the statement he has just made. Thank you very much. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Hydle, do you have more testimony then? Mr. HYDLE. That covers my formal remarks, but I am glad Mr. Bleakley reminded me-as it happens, we had our annual meeting of the Washington membership today, and if I may just read a one-page resolution which the membership passed, which is directly relevant : Having heard and discussed the outgoing Governing Board's report on the draft Foreign Service Act of 1979, Having reviewed the testimony prepared for the hearing of July 9, 1979, The annual meeting of the Washington membership on July 9, 1979, Approves the outgoing Governing Board's efforts to keep AFSA membership in Foreign Service informed and to seek its advice regarding the draft act, Approves the outgoing governing board's efforts to obtain from the Depart- ment's management specific improvements in the draft act, Approves the general outlines of testimony prepared for the July 9, 1979. hearing, Recommends the incoming governing board vigorously seeks further improve- ment in the act while keeping the membership informed and seeking its advice on the AFSA position. The vote was 50 in favor and 4 opposed. That is all for the moment. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much. I am going to do what I did before, and that is, defer my questions until the end. But I want to comment, Mr. Bleakley, on a personal note, on his choice of a running mate. But that is for my own bias. Congressman Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. The statement on pay comparability-do you want that in the record? Mr. HYDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. The statement on comparability prepared by AFSA I would like to have put in the record at this point. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Without objection. [The information referred to follows:] STATEMENT BY AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE AssocrATION ON PAY COMPARABILITY FOR THE U.S. FOREIGN SERVICE The American Foreign Service Association seeks pay parity for the Foreign Service with the Civil Service. We do so for two reasons. We believe it is the best way to protect the Foreign Service from suffering again, as it has for at least the past ten years, a serious pay disadvantage. At the same time, we believe that the independence of the Foreign Service can and must stand firmly on grounds other than the similarity of its pay system to that of the Civil Service. The need for a separate Foreign Service rests instead on the flexibility of a rank-in-person system, global availability, and a unique career development system that recruits the best applicants from all walks of life and then moves them into this country's first line of defense. We understand that the management of the Department is currently discussing with OMB and OPM a new pay system for the Foreign Service. This manage- ment proposal, however, is seriously deficient in a number of respects : It establishes a more complex pay system with fewer linkage points to the Civil Service scale; It fails by a wide margin to provide for pay increases to middle-grade officers at levels which the Hay Associates pay study substantiates ; It puts a greater premium on longevity in grade rather than on upward mobility ; It fails to establish new grades, missing a chance to increase promotion opportunities over a career ; It reduces in effect the current rough equivalencies between GS and FSS grades at the lower staff levels. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 In contrast, our proposal is quite fair and simple. We seek direct grade and step linkage to the Civil Service GS scale, creating a 12-class FS system from GS-15/FS-1 to GS-4/FS-12. We would use the 10-step system of the GS scale, in which pay step increases are awarded less frequently the longer a person stays in the same grade-an incentive to move up or get out, we think. We believe the Hay study fully justifies such linkages, particularly when Hay Associates recommended that Foreign Service pay levels should be increased by 15 percent over Civil Service levels to allow for proper compensation of the overseas dimension of Foreign Service work. Our proposal would use the full GS scale from GS-4 to GS-15, providing a new class for officers between current FSO-6 and FSO-5, and for staff between cur- rent FSS-5 and FSS-4. The new officer class would be equated to GS-12, and, we believe, could be filled through a modest but updated classification effort aimed at current FSO-6's who have been given tenure. The new staff class would equate to GS-10 and would be a first step toward development of administra- tive assistants long needed in the Foreign Service. In any case, both the new officer and staff classes would serve to improve promotion opportunities over a Management has calculated that its proposal will cost about $13 million more a year. Our proposal, because it goes further to rectify past problems and bring about pay parity, will, of course, cost more-perhaps twice as much. But we see this as a relatively cheap investment in America's future-less than the price of three F-14 Tomcat Fighters of the type now sitting in Iran. A Foreign Service having full pay parity with the rest of the federal service will be a much more efficient and productive institution. Not only will pay parity be a significant boost to morale-currently at an all time low-but it will go a long way toward helping the Service attract and retain the best qualified of all backgrounds. In short, it will insure that the Foreign Service of the United States is democratic and truly representative of the American people. The last thing America needs in these times is a Service made up of only those who have independent means. CURRENT LINKAGES (3 POINT) 15----------------------- $38,160. 3------------------------ 1-------------------------------------------------- $34,642. 14----------------------- $32,442. -------------- 4 (No.1)-- 2----------------------- 13----------------------- $27,453. - 12----------------------- $23,087. 5------------------------ 3-------------------------------------------------- $22,137. 11----------------------- $19,263. 6------------------------ 4-------------------------------------------------- $18,179. 10----------------------- $17,532. 5(+)-------------------- 9------------------------ $16,265/$15,920. 71----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------ $15,222. 6(+)----------- ------- 8------------------------ $14,561/514,414. 8'(No.2)---------------- 7(+)-------------------- 7------------------------ $13,014/$13,041/$13,014. 8------------------------ 6(+)-------------------- $11,685/$11,712. 9------------------------ 5(+)-------------------- $10,473/$10,507. No.3-------------------- 10----------------------- 4------------------------ $9,391. 1 Officer exam entry levels. INITIAL DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL (9 CLASSES-PARTIAL AT 2 POINTS) 3 (No. 1) --------------- 1-------------------- 15------------------- 1-------------------- $35,616. 4---------------------- 2------------------------------------------ 2-------------------- $29,770. 13----------------------------------------- 5---------------------- 3------------------------------------------ 3-------------------- $23,825. 12----------------------------------------- 6 (No. 2) ---- ---------- 4------------ 11------------------- 4 '--- --------------- $17,979. 7---------------------- 5-------------------- 9-------------------- 51 ------------------ $15,920. 8------`--------------- 6-------------------- 7-------------------- 6 1--- --------------- $13,014. 7-------------------- 6-------------------- 7-------------------- $11,712. 8-------------------- 5-------------------- 8-------------------- $10 507. , 9/10----------------- 4-------------------- 9-------------------- $9,191. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 3-------------------------- 15- 1. 4-------------------------- 1 14-- 2. 5------------------------------ 2------------------------------ 13----------------------------- 3. New class---------------------- 3------------------------------ 12----------------------------- 4?' 6------------------------------ 4------------------------------ 11----------------------------- 5' New class---------------------- 10----------------------------- 6. 7------------------------------ 5------------------------------ 9------------------------------ 7.' 6------------------------------ 8------------------------------ 8. 8------------------------------ 7------------------------------ 7------------------------------ 9.1 8------------------------------ 6------------------------------ 10. 9 5------------------------------ 11. 10- 4------------------------------ 12. I Officer exam entry levels. Note: Grandfather provisions would protect FSS grades against slight pay reductions involved in these linkages. Mr. FASCELL. I went through this thing with you rather carefully, and it is a well organized statement, I might add. I want to be sure, so I am going to ask it again : On square 1 you guys are for the bill? Mr. HYDLE. Mr. Chairman, I have to Mr. FASCELL. With some amendments? Mr. HYDLE. We have not decided to say whether we are for or against the bill. Our position is as I read it earlier today. Mr. FASCELL. You would rather have individual amendments to the existing law? Mr. HYDLE. We said what our initial position was. Mr. FASCELL. It sounds very legalistic, Mr. Hydle. I would like to know why a lawyer advised you to say that? Mr. HYDLE. This was more of a reaction of the Foreign Service. It was a groundswell of opinion that it would be better, for example, not to come up to the Congress seeking new legislative authority if we had not used to the fullest extent existing legislative authority. But the question of whether to have just a few amendments instead of a comprehensive bill, a draft bill, we feel, is overtaken by the Secretary's decision to present to you the draft bill, and our position on the bill is that we don't endorse it today, but that it does contain some provisions which would help the Service deal with its problems, and that we believe the most useful service we can perform today is to provide a detailed commentary on the bill, which we have attempted to do in writing and in our oral testimony. Mr. FASCELL. You support several principles that are spelled out in the bill? Mr. HYDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. LEACH. Will the gentleman yield? I am struck by the fact that this sounds like our position vis-a-vis Iran and Nicaragua. We are neither for nor against; we are confused. The women and men of these two subcommittees are somewhat con- fused as well. I would hope, very seriously, you would come out with a definitive position, because bills have to be voted up or down. I recognize your difficulty, but I am not convinced that the resolution of your membership is altogether helpful to the subcommittees. Mr. HYDE. Congressman, I recognize your difficulty. All I can say is that at this point this is the most definitive statement that the Foreign Service and AFSA, representing the Foreign Service, can Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 make; namely, a detailed commentary on the legislation. We assume, if the analogy used in discussing with our membership today, which is, if Howard Baker can say he has not yet decided whether he is going to support this SALT treaty, then we at this point can withhold a final decision on whether we support the bill. We have recommended numerous amendments and the creation of legislative history, and we would like the bill to be protected from any attacks on the provisions that we like. Down the road a way, I have confidence that our successor governing board will be able to make a more definitive statement. Mr. LEACH. I would like to comment briefly. I am not sure I ap- preciate the analogy to Mr. Baker, but perhaps the board would want to retreat up to Camp David. Mr. FASCELL. It sounds like we will be at this a long time, and Mr. Bleakley seems to be very intelligent and articulate, and I am sure he will have the board eating out of the palm of his hand before we get through. We look for whatever definitive positions will be forthcoming. How long has it been since the association had Congress consider any amendments to the law? Mr. HYDLE. Last year, Mr. Chairman, in the authorization process. Mr. FASCELL. How long before that? Mr. HYDLE. I believe it was a year before. Mr. FASCELL. Is it fair to say it has been a continuing process? Mr. HYDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Is it fair to say the Congress has tried to be responsive to the requests of the association? . Mr. HYDLE. It is very fair to say, and you, personally, have been very responsive. Mr. FASCELL. I was not thinking about myself; I was thinking about Congress, generally. I want to get something on track in terms of what we are trying to do. I say this without any specific purpose except to make the record clear, that this Secretary of State, Cy Vance, in my judgment, has cooperated more than any Secretary of State in my experience-and I have been here 25 years-in trying to come to grips with the personnel problems. What is your view? Mr. HYDLE. I think that he has taken a very serious approach to this, and when we spoke to him about it in May, it was obvious he had read his briefing books, and he was able to ask specific questions about the legislation, the draft as it was then, and our position on it. There is no question. Mr. FASCELL. In terms of the internal discussions within State in arriving at its position, I want to be sure that I understand that you are saying that the Department made the most extensive effort at consultation. Am I correct? Mr. HYDLE. That is correct, sir. There has never been in our memory a more extensive effort to consult within the Foreign Service and be- tween the Service and the management of the Department. Mr. FASCELL. All I want to get here on record is the fact there has been a good faith effort on the part of management to come to grips with the problem. Otherwise, I certainly would not be here. Mr. HYDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Because we are partially responsible for all this effort. We have been needling them for 10 Years. Go ahead. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 147 STATEMENT OF ROBERT STERN, STATE DEPARTMENT REPRESENT- ATIVE, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION Mr. STERN. Mr. Chairman, when we first were told about this, and we went out to our membership to try and get responses, one of the things that became very clear, and perhaps reflects as to why we are coming out with what we are today, is that most of the abuses that this bill is designed to correct are abuses that were put in by previous man- agement, often over the objections of the association. In a sense, every couple of years a new team comes in, with great sincerity, with some sort of Holy Grail that is going to take care of all our problems; yet, 2 years later, we find ourselves looking for a new way of getting out of the newer mess we are in. Mr. FASCELL. Let me tell you something then : I can't help but inter- ject; we have the same problem in the Congress, and when the broom sweeps clean, many people say it does not change a darn thing; it is just more of the same. Mr. STERN. This is the fear we had, sir. For example, one of the reasons put forward for Senior Foreign Service was, they thought at the senior ranks, that glut was caused by management's choosing uni- laterally to give 22 years' time in class to senior grades. So we felt- and many of us still feel-we can administratively deal with many remedies and what we cannot deal with under the existing act is where we should be seeking the amendments. As you rightly said, you have been very serious in working with us on these things, but nevertheless we are here. We do have this piece of paper in front of us. Mr. FASCELL. I think we should work, and where it is necessary, we should establish the statutory base for whatever we want to do, if that is possible, and not leave it up to changes in administration either by executive order or by the internal dynamics of the Department, de- pending on who happens to be Secretary of State or who happens to be running the Department other than the Secretary of State, as was the case in the past. Anyway, going ahead, on page 9 of your testimony, you indicate dissatisfaction with lateral entry programs, since it has the effect of increasing the number of women and minorities. Are you saying that these groups are unable to perform their duties as well as white males? Mr. HYDLE. No, sir. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We would like to have a little expansion. Mr. HYDLE. The lateral entry exists under the present Foreign Serv- ice Act. In 1975, an agreement was reached between the Department and AFSA which provided for bringing in women and minorities at the middle level ; but the agreement provided this should- be done con- sonant with the personnel needs of the Service, the specific functional needs in addition to the broader idea there is a need to be broadly rep- resentative of the American people. The Department has ignored these functional needs in bringing people in; that was the problem we focused on in our testimony. Mr. FASCELL. I have one more question : As exclusive bargaining agents for Foreign Service employees, can you specifically outline your responsibility to the members as they now are, and how you would perceive them under the proposed legislation? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Mr. HYDLE. I would like to invite our legal counsel to comment on that. STATEMENT OF KATHERINE WAELDER, LEGAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION Ms. WAELDER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to define what are the parameters of the information you are looking for? Mr. FAsoELi.. I want to know how you relate to State and AID em- ployees now, and how you are going to relate to them after enactment of this bill. Is there any change Ms. WAELDER. In whom we represent? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. MS. -VVAELDER. We represent all Foreign Service personnel, both in State and in AID in separate agencywide bargaining units. Excluded from those bargaining units are those persons occupying positions de- fined as "management official" or "confidential employee." Mr. FASCELL. Are those exceptions under Executive order? Ms. WAELDER. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Go ahead. Ms WAELDER. Under those formulations that have been in effect since 1971, approximately 90 pem ent of persons in the Foreign Service are within the bargaining unit; approximately 10 percent are excluded by that definition. Under chapter 10, as it is currently drafted, further personnel are excluded from the bargaining unit. The bargaining units would still be agencywide; there would be an agencywide bargaining, unit for all Foreign Service persons, and each of the three foreign aft-- fairs agencies. That would be the Department of State, USICA, and AID. Each bargaining unit would include persons assigned domes- tically and assigned overseas. The bargaining units would exclude those persons in positions de- fined as "management officials" and "confidential employees." It would also exclude certain other positions and other functions within the Department, including persons involved in internal security, intelli- gence or counterintelligence functions in auditing functions, and per- sons engaged in tasks on behalf of management personnel other than in a purely clerical capacity. Those additional exclusions would bring the number of persons in our bargaining unit back down to-I believe-approximately 80 per- cent would probably be a fair estimate. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Hydle said 850 are excluded now under Executive order, and 1,200, I believe he said, would be excluded under the bill, and you just testified as to the enlargement of the exclusion contained in this bill when you defined categories of people. Those 850 people are in what categories? Mr. HYDLE. We commented on it directly in chapter 10. Mr. FASCELL. The position you are taking with respect to additional exclusions is, they ought not to be added in the definition of "exclusive" ? Mr. HYDLE. That is correct, sir. Mr. FASCELL. By virtue of the nature of their work? Mr. HYDLE. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Whereas, management is already arguing the opposite? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. HYDLE. I am not sure what they are arguing. The bargaining unit that has existed under Executive Order 11636 has worked fine with these categories included in the bargaining unit. Mr. FASCELL. There have been no complaints? Mr. HYDE. None to my knowledge, and there is no case made by the Department. Mr. FASCEELL. That is why you made the statement-the burden is on somebody else? Mr. HYDLE. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. That is all. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Leach. Mr. LEACH. Do you support, at this moment in time, the window concept? Mr. HYDLE. The threshold window concept, I believe you are refer- ring to section 602 (a), which says that within the parameters of time in class there will be a period of time during which one can apply for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service. The initial version of this was rigid; it said within 2 years or 3 years after you get into the FS-1 rank-now FSO-3-you had to start being considered for promotion and 4 or 5 years thereafter you were finished; if you had not been pro- inoted, you would be able to hang around until your time in class had been completed, but not be promoted. We opposed that because we thought it was too rigid and that a per- son's efficiency would decline if the person were not promoted but was still waitin'r for time-in-class to expire. The 602 (a) is an improvement over that, in that it makes it possible for the member of the Foreign Service to decide for himself or herself when to apply for promotion, and 602 (b) also puts into legislation the requirement that promotion into, and attrition out of, the Senior Foreign Service be managed so as to stabilize promotion opportunities, so a person who made a decision on when to go in, or when to seek pro- motion, would not be playing such a game of Russian roulette. With those caveats, we think that the section 602 (a) as it exists is adequate. Mr. LEACH. With the provision you have to request to be considered? Mr. HYDLE. Yes. Mr. LEACH. Do you like that? Mr. HYDLE. We would rather have request rather than have a fixed date by which you have to seek. I might say, also in AID, where there is at present no time-in-class, it would make no sense to establish a threshold window unless and until a reasonable time-in-class is established. Mr. MCBRIDE. I might add that our position necessarily assumes that time-in-class would be adjusted in tandem with the closing of the threshold window so when a person's window closed, his or her time- in-class would also end at roughly the same time. Mr. LEACH. Do you feel you have a firm commitment from the Sec- retary of State on pay comparability? Mr. HYDLE. Let me ask our guru on pay comparability, Bill Veale, to respond to that. Mr. VEALE. It is my understanding, Congressman, that the Secretary appreciates the problem now in the Foreign Service, that we lack comparability with civil service in a number of areas. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 . I am not exactly certain of the degree of his commitment, particu- larly in connection with the passage of this new Foreign Service Act. Mr. LEACH. Has AFSA undertaken any negotiations with OMB at this point? Mr. VEALE. No; we have not. Mr. LEACH. The reason I raised that, is State has testified it is con- cerned, but they have also testified that this proposal will cost nothing, which is somewhat contradictory. Now, my feeling is, State is sym- pathetic but I am not sure that there might not be some reason for AFSA to reserve judgment on the bill without a firm commitment. Mr. HYDLE. We feel that option remains open to the new governing. board under the formula. We have described concern in our position on the bill. Mr. LEACH. Would you object, given the possible cost implications, to a phased-in pay adjustment over a 3-year period, for example? Mr. HYDLE. I don't think we have a firm view on that. Our view is, as I described, briefly, there should be a 12-class and 10-step system, and I would say that we would rather have phase-in than inadequate final solution, if we are forced to a choice between those two. Mr. LEACH. Do you have a position on whether or not there should be a parachute, as there is in the SES? Mr. HYDLE. We don't favor the parachute. Mr. LEACH. Do you have a strong position on mandatory retirement? Mr. HYDLE. We favor mandatory retirement at 60. Our distin- guished legal counsel to my right submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in the Bradley v. Vance case which said, briefly, that mandatory retirement is part of the package of Foreign Service personnel system which is intended to assure what we called, colloqui- ally, "up and out." 1 Do you want to add anything to that? MS. WAELDER. Not at this time. Mr. LEACH. We all know the problems of stagnation in the Service today, but in principle I have never been totally convinced of manda- tory retirement. If you look at other foreign services in the world, if anything, there is an elderly bias in many, many countries operating in that type of framework. By the same token, one of the questions that I think was very real- istically raised by AFGE is whether or not it is mandatory retirement you want, or tough selection out at a given age. One implies tough choices; the other implies arbitrariness. Which would you prefer? Mr. HYDLE. We see mandatory retirement as part of the package of attrition mechanisms or culling mechanisms which include. selection out for substandard performance and for excessive time-in-class. But people who came into the Foreign Service and have advanced in the Service have done so in the' context of a system in which there was mandatory retirement at 60 and other people retired and they were able to move up. When it comes their turn to leave, it is their turn to leave. But existing legislation and this draft both do provide, of course, that if a person is a Presidential appointee or if the Secretary otherwise determines that it is in the public interest, and we recom- mended using the test of the needs of th9 Service, that individual can stay onbeyond 60. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. LEACH. Did you or do you have an absolutely firm position on whether or not you can accept the steps, or the grades and step pro- posal, of the Administration versus your own? Mr. HYDr.E. Our position as of about a week ago when we, or the Governing Board was able to come to grips with this evolving situa- tion is that at this point we favor the 12-grade, 10-step system parallel to the Civil Service, which is consistent with the concept of compati- bility and, I think, easier to reconcile with the whole concept of equal pay for equal work. - Since this position has just been established and we are about to be talking to the OMB about it, it is probably too early to be talking about fallback positions and what we would finally find palatable. Mr. LEACH. In the drafting of the legislation, did you guys consult at all with State Department management on the concept of a service development officer? Mr. HYDL.E. This is a recurrent theme that we have raised from time to time in the past, and we testified on it as recently as May 2, I think, before your subcommittee in discussing the united personnel system. Mr. LEACH. One final question, just because it is of popular cur- rency : Do you feel that we have an inadequate number of personnel abroad? Mr. HYDr,E. I think we feel in general that in the Department of State, at least the responsibilities that have been placed on the For- eign Service abroad have greatly increased over the last 20 years, particularly in areas such as consular service for Americans overseas or people who want to come here, or administrative service which the Department provides for other agencies which are themselves prolif- erating overseas. In AID there has been a great decrease in the num- bers of people overseas due to ideas like OPRED and BALPA and MODE, so you end up with an agency which everyone now says is too much based in Washington and is not doing enough overseas where the actual problems are. So I think that is a rather long answer to your question, but our an- swer is, there are not enough people serving overseas in the Foreign Service to do the jobs that are required of us by the Nation. Mr. LEACH. Let me end with one comment : I think you are exactly right in stressing Foreign Service secretary and support personnel, particularly secretary, and I am glad you raised that issue as strongly as you did, because when we look at these issues, we sometimes lose sight of that part of the Foreign Service. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Congressman Ireland. Mr. IRELAND. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Earlier testimony at this meeting concerned discussion of whether the Foreign Service could be handled just as easily as an overall part of civil service, and I would like to review that and get your comment in light of some comments you made. The scenario was that we could have everybody in the civil. service, without a separate Foreign Serv- ice; be they State Department people, Commerce, CIA, when they went overseas they certainly responded to some qualification status, but at the same time then became eligible for benefits in different ground rules that were indicative of their service overseas. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Let me add that also implied in that scenario was, should they stop their tenure overseas they would then be like other civil servants serv- ing domestically. My question is, if you would address that, in two regards : First of all, I am aware that your testimony is that they should be separate, and this was separate. I refer to your comment at the very beginning about the uniqueness, that you believe the Foreign Service is necessar- ily unique and different from the civil service because it responds to the Nation's need for qualified service available worldwide. It would seem to me that the scenario I outlined and which was in the previous testimony would also respond to that, and it would also re- spond. to it not just in the State Department and AID but also for other members of civil service going overseas. So it would seem that your statement here only does a part of the job for a small group of people. If your statement is true it should be true for everybody going overseas and the other, regarding your comment about a Foreign Staff Corps, and it would seem to me that if the scenario I outlined was in the original testimony there would be no need for that Foreign Staff Corps, simply because somebody then not serving overseas coming back would regain their position in the civil service. Can you address that for me? Mr. HYDLE. Yes, sir. The uniqueness of the Foreign Service that I tried to explain is related to the career concept, the fact that, for example, civil service rules do not permit transfer from a job to a job, from one job to another, unless it is voluntary and often in connec- tion with a promotion. We are transferred or reassigned as we call it every couple of years or so to any position in the United States or over- seas and the Service discipline requires us to accept these assignments. In the foreign affairs agencies whose primary missions are over- seas, that is the Department of State, AID, soon to be succeeded by IDCA, and ICA, it is logical to have a Foreign Service that is avail- able for worldwide assignment and must accept worldwide assign- ment in the same way our military services do. Now in addition to that of course it is necessary to have people in the other domestic department and agencies of the Government who may be available for specific overseas tours and there are provisions in this bill that do speak about limited and temporary appointments of say one tour of duty that might respond to a specific assignment overseas. Mr. IRELAND. The man who goes overseas for Commerce, isn't he just subject to the same hazards? Hasn't he got the same problems as the one who goes overseas for AID? Mr. HYDLE. Commerce is a special case. Mr. IRELAND. Commerce or Agriculture or what not. Those problems that you are addressing that are unique, are unique for that guy too. Why should he be the same as the guy over there for AID? Mr. HYDLE. Commerce is a bad example, because the Foreign Serv- ice overseas, how can we.say it, we Mr. IRELAND. Address it from the standpoint of any American civil servant overseas. Should he be treated the same as any other American civil servant overseas? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. HYDLE. Foreign Service people are expected to spend their entire career either overseas or in Washington, moving wherever the needs of the Service require. A civil servant in a domestic agency may only be required to serve one tour in a specific place overseas, but he is not subject to the same career discipline. There is also an important need which is fulfilled by the Foreign Service personnel systems of the foreign affairs agencies more sub- stantive in areas' background. That is people who are not only experts on a specific technical subject but who are also experts on the country they are serving in. That is the kind of special talents. Mr. IRELAND. That is saying one special talent is better than another special talent. The guy who goes over for Commerce may be a lot more talented than the guy in the State Department or AID that went over with a generality. That is saying one specialty is more important than another. Mr. HYDLE. We have not said one is better than another; we said they are different. Mr. STERN. Since I am a former commercial attache, I can respond specifically. Most Commerce officers overseas are Foreign Service officers. The exceptions to those are a few Commerce officers who on an exchangd program serve a tour overseas, so they get an idea of the overseas dimension because they have the domestic responsibility in the United States. But one of the important things Lars has been getting to, not all our service is in nice places like London and Paris and Rome. We can get all the volunteers we want for that. It is when we have to send people to Ouagadougou that we are not able to find people willing to give up a good position to go to a. place like that. We accept the ability or, rather, the obligation, to serve in a place like Ouagadougou as much as a place like Rome. I have never served in Western Europe. My service has been in the developing world. I think the part and parcel of it is, we spend years developing ex- pertise in two forms, substantive, certainly. I am an economic officer, for example, but very definitely area and geographic. The person who comes occasionally from the domestic side may bring very high tech- nical knowledge, and there are fine people there, but they are not necessarily the people who can relate that to the geographic, the area of responsibility. Mr. IRELAND. What I am trying to establish-both of you are American civil servants overseas and we are not here to decide which one of you is more important; you are Americans overseas, and why should you have the same benefits? Mr. STERN. But they do. In some cases they have better. Mr. IRELAND. In that case, all we need is a civil service with an addi- tional benefit for those serving overseas. Mr. STERN. We look at it from the other point of view. When these people come over, we give them Foreign Service commissions often so during the specific period they do achieve the benefits. But we would suggest that an officer or staff person that spends the better part of his life accepting these assignments earns certain benefits such as the earlier retirement; whereas, a person who comes from a domestic agency serves one tour, perhaps two tours, overseas, does not earn that specific benefit when he returns to the United States. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Otherwise, we would have a situation, I think, where everybody would want a tour overseas. That way, everybody gets the benefit of age-50 retirement. One of the objectives of this bill is to correct that anomaly and clearly distinguish between those people who spend the bulk of their lives overseas as opposed to those who put the bulk of their lives into domestic service. I think it is more similar to the military than it is to the civil service, and in many cases we have looked to the military for analogies. Like them, it is discipline. We go where we are sent. If I can quote from the farewell to the troops when Secretary Kis- singer departed, the one point he made was, despite all the problems he had with us-and he admitted he had some-the thing that struck him, no matter how difficult an assignment, including those where we brought the bodies of our people back, he never hag any problem filling those slots afterward, and this is the kind of service we have and which we want to preserve. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First, let me explain where I am coming from. I feel, for all the deficiencies one might find, that we have the finest Foreign Service in the world, and for years-I believe the record will reflect-I have been a friend of the Foreign Service. There are two or three things I want to speak to that concern me a bit about your testimony. First of all I hope you can come to a definitive position on the legislation itself. While I understand the desire to achieve equal op- portunity in our society, we are dealing with a conflict of that and not anything simple. It is very hard to see how one can move from where we are without such mechanisms as lateral entry, to where we need to be in terms of opportunities for women and for minorities when, at this point in history, for too many Americans, equal oppor- tunity is still much like cotton candy, and the Government is the Na- tion's largest employer. Yet, if you look at the track record of the Government overall, as a major employer we still have some problems in areas, so I have some concerns about that problem. Finally, I would like to ask a couple of questions about family mem- bers. You say, rightly, that you have initiated and supported most of the legislation in recent years to protect and enhance opportunities for spouses and other family members for training, employment, and career counseling. On the other hand, you express two areas of con- cern, the first being that you say, "Unfortunately, recent emphasis on the rights and needs of Foreign Service family members has in this zero-based area of budgetary limit adversely affected staff opportunity for training and assignment." Then you go on to express concern about the Foreign Service. You ask for legislative history making clear that training family members is in addition to, not instead of, training members of the Service, making training for members of the Service identical to that available to family members, and you go on in that theme. As you are aware, the idea of the Congress was to make available for service all the many talented people who happen to be spouses or family members with the idea of replacing foreign nationals, not our people, for those persons. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I would like the record to get very clear on that subject you are not saying that you are not supportive of that idea, are you? Mr. HYDLE. Absolutely not. We do support that idea, and what we have said in our testimony is that we got.off the track a little bit in abolishing Foreign Service career positions or leaving them vacant, and then hiring family members on a part-time, temporary, intermit- tent basis. There has been some abuse as we see it of the concept which we strongly supported. Mr. BUCHANAN. We have felt some frustration because we have a really hard time getting the Department to do anything to imple- ment the original idea which we had. We had thought that it would make very good sense for some of these very bright, capable Ameri- cans to replace foreign nationals, and we have had a hard time get- ting off the ground on that subject. Mr. HYDLE. Could I return to your comment on equal employment opportunity? We have supported equal employment opportunity within the For- eign Service and we support remedies for individual situations in which there has been past discrimination which, of course, is already provided under law through the EEO complaint system. Where we have had arguments with the Department of State it has been over whether there should be programs which provide prefer- ential treatment to people simply because they are members of pre- viously disadvantaged groups at the expense of equal opportunity for all. I would like to ask my colleague, State Department representative, Barbara Bodine, to comment further on that. Ms. BODINE. We have absolutely no objection and firmly supported lateral entry programs in EEO programs at the junior level. What we are concerned about is not that anybody thinks-and certainly not me-that women and minorities are not capable of doing the job; but those candidates who come into this system are fully capable of doing the job, the qualified candidates do exist, that they are screened, the proper candidates are selected and hired, that they are given the opportunities to develop their talents and experience, and they can come up to par with some other officers who have been in a little longer but they have not been given a preferential status simply because they are lateral entry or supply because they are women and minorities, that this type of program by giving preferential treatment to a separate group deni- grates to an extent those who have come in from the bottom and worked their way up. It makes two separate classes of Foreign Serv- ice officers; and I would add that within the regular Foreign Service officers you also have women and minorities, so it is not a white male versus women and minorities. It is very much a career and special- privilege-class question. Mr. BUCHANAN. OK, but we have a certain time for lag in that women and minorities in only very recent years have been afforded real equal opportunity in the Department of State and elsewhere. So, you have a generation or half a generation of women and minori- ties who never got a chance to get into the system. If you are a bright, capable person and might have all sorts of wonderful talent and might be a value to the country, and you could not get into the sys- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 156 tem at a lower level, and you are not in at a point in life where it would be appropriate for you to enter it at a lower level, the only method of entry at this point would be lateral entry. Ms. BODINE. There are some very talented people who for one rea- son or another did not choose to join the Foreign Service or were not able to join the Foreign Service at lower ranks, and now want to come in, and they do have talent` and experience we can use. We fully support that program. Mr. BUCHANAN. You are not saying the fact that a bright female person-my friend to my right, suppose she were a person who had all the capabilities but had not had the opportunity? The gentleman sitting behind you might have equal capabilities, but also the op- portunity, so, therefore, is an experienced officer with a track rec- ord that is of value; but the reason she doesn't have that is because she never got in the door in the first place. That is an inequity for the Government to say he has ability and experience and from the point of view of the value to the Government and functional point of view he is of greater value than she. Ms. BODINE. As I said, the lateral entry program is supposed to be designed to bring in women and minorities who for one reason or another did not, or could not, join the Department at the lower ranks because of whatever reasons. It is supposed to also be hiring for func- tional needs of the Service. Now, let us assume you have a bright female who has been work- ing in academia or journalism or something else and wants to come in, and does have experience, the, background, and does have the proper credentials to fill a functional need. That is part of what the lateral entry program is set up to hire, and that is the kind of per- son it should be hiring, and that is what we do support. Now, with the background that I have-they will not have three tours in the Foreign Service because they just joined, but they will have other experience to bring to bear and other experience that can be very useful. I would also like to add that there should be equal opportunity in getting the proper kinds of training and experience; but that is sepa- rate and different from setting up criteria once they are in that keeps them totally segregated for the rest of their careers. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have one more question. One of my frustrations in dealing with equal employment oppor- tunities in the Foreign Service is very similar to the frustrations in our dealing with civil service on it. That is, women and minorities are taking this test and are denied entry based on it. Even though the test discriminates against the minorities and women we still hear that the test is the way to go, without verifying those tests. I get a little upset as I hear everybody defending that. If you went to Harvard, Prince- ton, or Yale and wear a crewneck sweater, we obviously know you are qualified. I don't tend to believe that and we have had fairly devastating testimony in our own committee on that. Let me move to another thing which goes along with what Congress- man Ireland was talking about. That is you were suggesting that the Presidential appointment of Senior Foreign Service members in, AID would reduce political abuse. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Do you know of political abuse in AID and how is Presidenital ap- pointment of the people going to reduce that possibility? Mr. HYDLE. What I said, Madam Chairwoman was-I did not mean to link the two things. They were in successive sentences but not in- tended to describe a causative relationship. I said for the first time senior AID Foreign Service people would become, as members of the Senior Foreign Services, Presidential appointees with an opportunity to be promoted to highest rank now called Career Minister. That is one thing. The other thing is that political abuse of the system should be reduced by which we had in mind, for example, the 5-percent limit on the numbers of noncareer appointees in the Senior Foreign Service replacing the-I believe you called it the AD-administra- tively determined-appointment authority that exists under the cur- rent Foreign Assistance Act. Mrs. SCIIROEDER. You are against the 5 percent, you would have zero percent? Mr. HYDLE. We favor the 5 percent. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Rather than 10 percent? Mr. HYDLE. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But you are not linking political abuse to Presi- dential appointment? Mr. HYDLE. Not at all. Mrs. SCHROEDER. To get back to the other issue, do you have any rea- son you could offer as to why women and minorities have done so poorly in entering into Foreign Service. Ms. BODINE. On the women I am not entirely sure we are doing that poorly. Mrs. SCHROEDER. They certainly have in the past. Ms. BonINE. They have in the past. To a certain extent there have been changes. Some of it is social. You have greater numbers of women going into the kinds of discipline that prepare you for the written exam. You have greater number of women who are thinking about the Foreign Service as a career. You have changing family patterns and all of this. With the abolition of the law on married couples you have a lot of wives coming back in and a lot of wives taking the exam, once their husbands are already in or couples taking it together, so with the social changes you have a great many more women taking the exam and passing the exam. The last couple of classes-and I can't give a firm statistic, have been almost 50-percent women. So the women are doing much better. They have also changed the exam. First the written exam has been changed and they have been trying to get out some of the biases. Sec- ond there is now a group dynamics exercise where a woman or any of the candidates are able to show their personal ability rather than just something that is specific in a written exam. And so they have been doing far better and they have been coming in in greater numbers. Mr. HYDLE. I believe the recent statistics indicate that among women who take the Foreign Service exam they pass in approximately the same proportions as men. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I wanted to ask you some questions about your testi- mony on compensation. It seems to me a lot of what a Foreign Service Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 officer does in a foreign country is gain contacts and so forth. And yet you are asking for both premium pay and a special allowance for ex- cessive hours. I want to know when the Foreign Service officer is on duty and when he or she is not on duty? Would you.consider cocktail receptions being on duty? Do you have guidelines for the committee if we really take into account these different proposals? Mr. HYDLE. I believe you are thinking of our testimony on page 5. The repeal of the ban on premium pay for FSO's and FSIO's simply refers to the action that went into effect last October which says that FSO's and FSIO's cannot earn overtime or compensatory time or night, Sunday, or holiday differential on the same basis as people in other Foreign Service categories. That is what we have opposed. We believe that the Subcommittee on International Operations' heart is with us on this, but they were unsuccessful in preventing that from going into effect. We have also suggested as a separate idea that the existing special allowance, or as we would call it, special differen- tial, would be used to compensate especially communicators and secre- taries who may not actually be on duty but who are on call by their phones. They can't go anywhere because they might be called to go on duty and they are severely restricted. If they actually have to go in on duty, then this category of people will receive overtime or compensa- tory pay. But we believe there should be some compensation for the hours spent hanging around the phone at home. We don't claim you should pay a person the full hour's pay for a full hour hanging around the phone, but we would suggest the use of the special allowance concept, that if a certain job requires a certain amount of that, there is a way of compensating those people for the hours of restriction on their free time. Mrs. SCHROEDER. You heard testimony from the prior group about the grievance problem. You are speaking in favor of expanding the union and yet, if under this bill only the union can trigger the griev- ance procedure, it is conceivable the. union will be representing people on both sides of the argument or dispute. How do you recommend we are going to work out that conflict of interest? I come to this from the private labor law sector, and I really don't comprehend why you are asking for that. Mr. HYDLE. Madam Chairwoman, in our testimony on pages 11 and 12, we emphasize we have not sought the monopoly which the legis- lation would give, the exclusive representative over grievance repre- sentation and over access to the Foreign Service Grievance Board. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So you would want the grievance section changed so it would not be the union only triggering it? Mr. HYDLE. Yes ; and we made that suggestion in the detailed sec- tion-by-section analysis. What we do seek, what we don't have now, is the right to be present during grievance proceedings, individual grievance proceedings, in order to make sure that these do not evolve in ways that are contrary to the interests of the whole bargaining unit, or the Grievance Board does not make an interpretation of a regu- lation which is contrary to the meaning that we attach to the agree- ment that produced the regulation. That is all we are asking. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 As far as representing both the supervisor and the grievant, this does not arise because it is the grievant who has a grievance against the department or agency, not against an individual supervisor, and it is not up to us to defend a supervisor against a criticism of him or her by a grievant. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Not necessarily. It seems to me if you are repre- senting both top level Foreign Service officers and also low level communicators, it is very conceivable you could get into a conflict. MS. WAELDER. If I could speak to this issue as well. The rank- in-person system of Foreign Service sets up a system by which persons move in and out of positions which may be in the bargaining unit in one tour of duty and out of the bargaining unit on another tour of duty, and the basic uniformity of personnel policies worldwide and applicable to everybody makes this kind of dichotomy between a super- visor and supervised employee that is typical elsewhere in labor rela- tions less a feature of the Foreign Service system. It is equally possible a senior officer in an overseas post is going to have a dispute with the Department of State concerning how much weight he was allowed to ship of his household effects, and the officer responsible for that at the overseas post may be a junior administrative officer but it is his respon- sibility to interpret the administrative provisions. So the supervisor- supervisee relationship is not so integral a part of the labor relations. What is more a part of our labor relations system is the uniform application of Foreign Service rep, lations worldwide, and these regu- lations, these policies, create the same kinds of difficulties for all of our employees serving overseas, whether they may be junior or senior. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I hear what you are saying, I am not sure it is not just rhetoric. It is kind of like when we got into the question of picketing with the other group, who is the employer? It is always somewhere else. We are just administering and it is all the trickle- down type of thing. I feel like we are trying to nail Jello to the wall. We are supposed to be putting together a process that is going to work and we have to have some concrete definition of who represents whom and what triggers what and how you avoid conflict of interest and who is really involved in implementation of it and who can be held to task for different things. And I am not sure we are getting guidance on that. Ms. WAELDER. May I make two other points? I believe you stated a moment ago we were seeking to expand the bargaining unit. That is not correct, Madam Chairwoman. We are seeking to maintain the bargaining unit that has worked successfully for us since 1973. What we are seeking to do is keep the bargaining unit that has been in opera- tion for all these years. We are not seeking to expand it. It is man- agement that is seeking to bring it back in. We are seeking precisely the same bargaining unit that has been in effect and has worked for 6 years now in all. of the foreis-n affairs agencies. Mr. HYDLE. During which we have had the grievance procedures that would be substantially reenacted in chapter 11. Mrs. SCHROEDER. It seems to me there is a logical reason why man- agement has gone in that direction. Maybe it is because of the grievance procedure conflict they project. Mr. HYDE. If I can be allowed to speculate, it is simply that man- agement, in order to get an administration position, has had to agree Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 with some of the people at the OPM who think in terms of title VII bargaining units. The position that has come out in the bill on the bargaining unit is a compromise between OPM and the Department of State. Ms. WAELDER. You also spoke of conflict of interest. Both the exist- ing Executive order and chapter 10 in the new bill do provide that any individual who has conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest with respect to his official duties and his participation as the exclusive representative, may not participate on such an issue. This clause we have used from time to time when an officer who may have had a role in personnel management on a prior assignment, on his subsequent assignment comes back into the bargaining unit and has taken an active role in the association. And we are conscious of' the responsibility of officers to the Department of State. Institutionally, this conflict of interest provision is one that has protected the system well and would continue to do so. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I understand how that works but it still seems there is a broader application of where it comes. Let me ask one more question : Do you also wish to be present at grievance procedures if the employee does not want you there? Is that what you are also asking, because you want to be there not to protect the employee but to safeguard the interpretation of rules? MS. WAELDER. We seek to be there such that we may represent our interest if need be. There have been occasions when interpretations of agreements between the Agency and the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative have been at issue in an individual grievance hearing. We seek to be able to know and to put in our voice on issues that may effect the rest of our bargaining unit. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So you would then request to be there whether or not the employee wanted that? Let me also ask you how you justify preserving Foreign Service retirement benefits for domestic-only Foreign Service employees who have never gone abroad? Mr. HYDLE. That was difficult, Madam Chairwoman. I think we con- cluded that it had been a mistake several years ago to bring into the Foreign Service people who really had no intention of going overseas, for whom there are actually no jobs overseas, but some of them came in with some understanding or promises in that connection and our con- clusion was that it would be the best way to reestablish a clean distinc- tion between Foreign Service people who are worldwide available and assignable, and other peonle who can serve well in the foreign affairs agencies but only in Washington. The employee could either take the Foreign Service approach or civil service approach, each of which has some advantages and some disadvantages from the individual employee's point of view. I might say briefly the ICA-AFGE agreement which dQalt with this problem and which is referred to in, I think, 2103 or so, was a good agreement at the time, and had we not had this bill come up, we might well have taken the same approach they did, but now that the bill has arisen we think within the context of comprehensive legislation this is the best approach. Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is how you justify negating their contract? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. HYDLE. It looks as if their contract-if that is what it is-is going to be superseded after the end of the contract period. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think they testified it was open ended. Mr. HYDLE. It is open ended in the sense their people can remain within the Foreign Service without having to go overseas, as I under- stand it. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Does anyone else have any further questions? I think I will proceed to put the rest of mine in the record. Mr. STERN. May I just comment on something you said. Before we got into this particular discussion you referred to the Foreign Service work overseas being mostly contact and I thought- Mrs. SCHROEDER. I did not mean to say mostly. I said I think that is a large part of it. Mr. STERN. It certainly is but these contacts are not an end in itself and it struck me the way the record might read it would tend to read like the contact work was the reason we were there rather than it was the analysis of what we would learn from our contacts. One of the problems we have in addition to the hours we spent outside of the office, with the cocktail parties and what-have-you, we tend to spend an inordinate amount of time in the office, well beyond 40 hours, and it tends to be an accepted thing that you have a real good bargain in the Foreign Service. An officer can work 60 or 70 hours a week and he is not entitled to anything, and this is a good excuse not to hire more people. This is the way it has been working. All of us find the phone calls come at 6 o'clock and 6:30 in the evening to our desk even though normal duty hours are to 5 :30, and a good portion of the Department is in every Saturday or at every Embassy because it is getting to be expected of us. I think this was one of the points we needed to have made and I am sorry I forget the exact section-412 was it-that we sought to have repealed. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So you would consider anything over 40 hours over- time in the office? Mr. HYDLE. If that section were repealed, then we would be back in the same status as other civil servants and Foreign Service personnel categories with respect to premium pay including overtime, compensa- tory time, night differentials, Sunday differential, and the ability to waive those rights in order to participate in flexitime experiments and other innovations. Ms. WAELDER. If I may pick up, this means anybody paid less than the level of GS-10, step 10, would on application' pplication be entitled to over- time like all other overtime employees, and anybody who earned more than that could put in for compensatory time. It is those provisions which are not applicable to Foreign Service officers but are applicable to all other civil servants and to all other Foreign Service pay categories. Mrs. SCHROEDER. If there are no further questions, I think we will hold the record open for a while for more questions, and at this point I think we will adjourn the hearing. Thank you very much for appearing. [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, AND COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittees convened at 9:35 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman of the Sub- committee on International Operations) presiding. Mr. FASCELL. Our subcommittees meet this morning to continue our hearings on the Foreign Service personnel reform bill and we have again with us this morning Ben Read, Under Secretary of State for Management, accompanied by Director General of the Foreign Serv- Barnes, and James Michel, Deputy Legal Adviser. ice, in We want to pick up where we stopped last time during our section- by-section discussion of the bill. We had stopped on page 18 at section 321. In the meantime all of us have had an opportunity to get better educated on the bill, having heard from AFGE. This will give us the opportunity to pursue some of their concerns as we go along. So let's start with section 321 with the fundamental question, subject to whatever my colleagues desire to ask at any point : Is this a rewrite of existing law, or is there something new in it; if so, what is it exactly that is new and why have changes been made? STATEMENT OF HON. BEN H. READ, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MANAGEMENT Mr. READ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are ready to proceed accordingly. I might mention that we have prepared and will be submitting by the deadline you suggested, tomor- row, the written answers to 120 or 140 separate questions and I think that that will be fully responsive to the inquiries you made for the record and during the first hearings.' All but three or four answers have been prepared, and we will be prepared to discuss them at any time. I am delighted to proceed on this section-by-section basis. I believe we had just completed the discussion of 321 and I will ask Jim Michel to pick up there if that is agreeable with you. The questions and answers referred to are contained in appendix 26. (163) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. Yes, sir. Mr. MICHEL.. Section 322 on career appointments Mrs. SCHROEDER. Can I ask you again : You have the 5 percent in there rather than the 10 percent as in the civil service? Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Is there any real reason why you changed that from the Civil Service Reform Act? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. The Civil Service Reform Act's 10 percent, as we understand it, reflects the facts as they exist within the civil service; within the civil service there are about 10 percent noncareer personnel at the senior levels. In the Foreign Service it is about 5 percent, actu- ally a little less than 5 percent, noncareer personnel at the senior levels. For the same reason that the Civil Service Reform Act uses 10 per- cent, we have used 5 percent. We do not want to change what is per- missible in the way of political or noncareer appointments at the senior levels. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Mr. MICHEL. Should I proceed? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Mr. MICHEL. Section 322 on career appointments brings together about five different provisions of the existing law and provides a sin- gle process for acquiring tenure in the Foreign Service. The procedure of a limited appointment during probation is applicable now to For- eign Service officer candidates and to the Foreign Service Reserve offi- cers. The law just provides with respect to Foreign Service staff and to other personnel that the Secretary may prescribe regulations, includ- ing provisions for probationary periods. So this is essentially a codifi- cation of existing law and makes the same procedure apply to all the different categories. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, 'may I ask a question? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I would like to know more about the boards. Are you going to put more in the language about the tenure boards? Is this entirely or primarily career people? Is there an appeal from the board's decision? Will there be standards? How is the selection going to be made? What are the guidelines? In other words, is there some- thing more concrete there? Mr. MICHEL. Typically the decision about whether to grant tenure to a probationary employee is a management decision and it is not something that is the subject of the kind of appeal rights that would exist for an employee who has tenure if the proposal is to separate the employee involuntarily. The tenure board does operate, and would continue to operate, under precepts that are worked out with the exclusive representative of the employees. There is no appellate structure, but there is a negotiation that leads to the guidelines that are applied by the board. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What about the performance standards? Mr. MICHEL. The same performance evaluation is done on the can- didate as is done on any other officer or employee in the Foreign Serv- ice. The individual does have the right to bring a grievance if he or she believes there is anything in the performance file that is unfair and prejudices the opportunity to acquire tenure. 1 James H. Michel, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. READ. Can I add a footnote there. What we are doing here is extending the tenure process for career status in the Foreign Service. At present, tenure is granted too casually and we wish to give real meaning to this action. I think that we grant tenure more casually for non-Foreign Service officers than is done in most other organizations. I think this will help professionalize the Foreign Service and make a real contribution. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think that is right. Will it enable the same rights to tenure; will there be concrete guidelines? Mr. READ. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Or will it go the "Old Boys" network? I am pleased to hear you talk about that. Mr. FASCELL. Let me pursue something on that section right there. As I understand it, with just a cursory examination of this matter, what you have eliminated is the statutory probationary period and left it to some board determinations? Mr. MICHEL. No; the probationary period for Foreign Service offi- cer candidates has been 48 months plus an additional 12, or 5 years. Mr. FASCELL. Does that still remain in the law? Mr. MICHEL. That remains in the law because the limited appoint- ment cannot exceed 5 years. That is dealt with in section 331 of the bill. Mr. FASCELL. Well, let me see. Mr. MICHEL. When we say a limited appointment in 322, you have to read that with 331 which says a limited appointment may in no event exceed 5 years. Mr. FASCELL. What does that mean? At the end of 5 years under limited appointments he is either in or that means he has tenure or he is out? Mr. MICHEL. Or he is out. Mr. FASCELL. Under the present system you say that is a ministerial function both for service and nonservice people? Mr. MICHEL. At the present time this procedure contemplated in 322 applies to Foreign Service officer candidates and it is provided for by section 516 of the Foreign Service Act only. Mr. FASCELL. So then 516(c), which is that last paragraph there, in its entirety remains as is? Mr. MICHEL. Section 516(c) would be repealed if we borrow from 516(c) to get the procedure that is reflected in new section 522. Mr. FASCELL. As read in 331. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. We have now gone full circle. I thought that is what you did ; therefore, I will restate the proposition. You have a 5 -year limitation which was laid down in section 331. Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. So that changes the system that you have in 516(c). Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Now it begins to read clearly. The other thing that is changed is that now you are going to make tenure a board process. Mr. MICHEL. Throughout the ranks of the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. All candidates? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Service and nonservice or whatever it is. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 166 Now that is going to be a board process in the same fashion as up- ward mobility is a board process, isthat correct? I mean the determi- nation of tenure at a given period of time. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Now how is the given period of time determined? When does the board act? What is the trigger? Mr. MICHEL. They will look at the performance file. Mr. FASCELL. I know, but when? Every 6 months? Mr. MICHEL. I believe it is annually and they may decide to grant tenure after 2 years or after 3 years or after 4 years. Mr. FASCELL. Is that based on rule, regulations, or precedent? Mr. BARNES. It is called a Commissioning and Tenure Board. Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me? Mr. BARNES. This particular board has the opportunity to review, by regulation, those candidates who have been in the service for 2 years. They have to make their decision though before 4 years have expired and I expect that for the other categories we would set compa- rable rules. They would vary probably depending on the category. Mr. FASCELL. You mean that as a newcomer, I come in on a proba- tionary basis, and nothing happens to me for as long as 4 years? Mr. BARNES. That is right. ' Mr. FASCELL. But something could happen to me any time after 2? Mr. BARNES. You could get your tenure and promotion after 2. Mr. FASCELL. But I might not? Mr. BARNES. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. So I could be promoted but I would not have any ten- ure under the present system for at least 2 years. Mr. BARNES. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Are those by regulations? Mr. BARNES. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Is that going to be the same as far as present thinking is concerned with respect to the application of 332 and 331? Mr. BARNES. As I indicated, I think our tentative thinking depends on the category. Mr. MICHEL. You don't need the same length of time to make that decision for all occupational groups. It is thought that for the For- eign Service officer it is desirable to have a couple of tours of duty, a couple of different supervisors before you make that judgment. On the other hand, let's say that you have somebody who is a clerk in the mail room. You don't need 4 years to decide, yes, this is a good clerk and we will grant this person tenure., Mr. FASCELL. OK. . Any other questions on that? Let's go to the next section. Mr. MICHEL. Section 323 establishes a -normal maximum entry level for Foreign Service officer candidates. The class 4 referred to in the text of the bill is intended to correspond roughly to class 6 in the pres- ent Foreign Service officer salary structure. The present normal entry level is at class 7 and this section would provide a somewhat broader band for the entry level, taking into account the broader range of can- didates we are now getting in terms of both age and education and experience. Mrs. SCHROEDER. May I ask a question at this point? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Is this the lateral entry issue? Mr. MICHEL. To enter above class 4 would be a lateral entry. This is provided for in these two paragraphs indicating that in an individual case, someone could be brought in at a higher level on the basis of a determination if they have the qualifications and experience for which there is a need in the Service. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We had some negative testimony on Monday, as I recall, on lateral entry from AFSA. Is this basically a codification of the program as it is now operating or are there changes in it? Mr. MICHEL. We have not retained some of the rigidities which make a distinction between people over 30 and under 30, and who have 3 years of Government service or 4 years of Government service, before they come in through lateral entry. Those did not seem appropriate to carry forward. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But other than that, it is the same? Mr. MICHEL. It is the same. Mrs. SCHROEDER. There is no difference. All right. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. Any other questions on section 323 ? If not, let's go to section 324. Mr. MICHEL. Section 324 concerns the recall and reappointment of career personnel. This is basically a codification of the present section 520 of the 1946 act. The section permits a retired member of the For- eign Service to be recalled and permits a former member who has resigned to be reappointed without having to go through the candidate process that we described. The difference is that the language is generalized. Whereas the pres- ent law talks about recall of a Foreign Service officer only, this sec- tion talks about recall of a "member" of the Foreign Service. It would apply to all categories of personnel. Mr. FASCELL. Any questions on that section? Mr. Derwinski. Mr. DERwINsKI. Mr. Chairman. The provision there on length of service by a recalled member be- yond mandatory retirement has been limited to 5 years. How would that affect a unique case such as you have with Elsworth Bunker who, if I understand correctly, has been beyond the retirement age for 15 years? Mr. MICHEL. He was not recalled, but appointed by the President. Mr. DERWINSKI. So in this section you are dealing with career personnel not subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. DERWINSKI. This restricts though, in part, the 5-year limitation? Mr. MICHEL. The President can appoint to a constitutional office or statutory office, with Senate advice and consent, anyone he pleases and there is no age limitation and none intended by this bill. Mr. DERWINsKI. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Let's take the next section which we partially discussed. Mr. MICHEL. Section 331 establishes a 5-year maximum for limited appointments in the Service. This is consistent with the existing law Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 168 that applies to Foreign Service Reserve officers and extends the 5-year rule to all categories of personnel. At present, there is no such thin as a limited Foreign Service officer. Limited appointments in the Stag Corps are authorized, but the time period is-set by regulation and is not specified in law. Mr. FASCELL. Well, let me see if we are all using the same words. Noncareer-no tenure-is that what that means? Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. "Other limited appointments in the Service" means Mr. MICHEL. Well, there are two kinds of situations in addition to career candidates in which you use the limited appointment. One is to bring someone in where there is a temporary need for that individual. They come into the Government; they work for a few years; and they leave. The other kind of a situation we would not want to call non- career. It is when somebody who is a career employee in some other agency goes into the Foreign Service on a limited basis and then re- turns to their career position in the civil service. This is also dealt with in the following section, section 332, on reemployment rights. Mr. FASCELL. So "other limited appointments" means those cate- gories which you just described. Mr. MICHEL. These are career people but they are not career Foreign Service people. Mr. FASCELL. And a time limited appointment means what? Mr. MICHEL. A limited appointment. Mr. FASCELL. What does "time" mean? Mr. MICHEL. The word "time" in line 18 may be redundant. Mr. FASCELL. Well, is a time limited appointment a temporary ap- pointment always and is a temporary appointment always a* time limited appointment? Mr. MICHEL. No. A limited appointment may be for any length of time up to a maximum of 5 years. Mr. FASCELL. So a limited appointment has a different connotation although it may be temporary up to 5 years? It is not temporary at all. Mr. MICHEL. We use that for 1 year or less because such appoint- ments are treated differently in terms of leave eligibility and retire- ment plan. Mr. FASCELL. Now do you want to restate that? Mr. MICHEL. All right. If someone is employed in the Government for less than 1 year, they don't go into the civil service retirement sys- tem; they are covered by social security. Mr. FASCELL. Now that is a temporary appointment? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. It also happens to be a time limited appointment? Mr. MICHEL. Well, the sentence reads "a time limited appointment in the Service for not to exceed 1 year shall be a temporary appoint- ment." The sentence is in there simply for administrative convenience so that there is a statutory basis for designating certain limited ap- pointments as "temporary." Mr. FASCELL. Anything under 5 years is going to be temporary. Mr. MICHEL. Under 1 year. Mr. FASCELL. Clearly designated by statute. Mr. MICHEL. Yes, and that identifies those people who are not in civil service retirement or Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me. I am not trying to nitpick but why couldn't that read, "any appointment in the Service for not to exceed 1 year shall be a temporary appointment"? What is the difference between that and what you have? Mr. MICHEL. The only difference is that we would like to regard the temporary appointment as a subcategory of limited because there are some references to limited appointment in other places in the bill which are meant to include the temporary appointment. Mr. FASCELL. A limited appointment then is anything under 5 years? Mr. MICHEL. That is right, including a temporary appointment. Mr. FASCELL. But a temporary assignment is anything under 1 year. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. They are both time limited. Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. By statute. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Now are there any regulations which are in effect which need to be understood for definitional or clarification purposes? Mr. MICHEL. As I indicated earlier, we would have regulations im- plementing the leave act and the retirement laws. Mr. FASCELL. To discover what my benefits as the employee under either one of those categories to which this section would apply, which is anything under 5 years, I would have to look at regulations? Mr. MICHEL. Well, there would be implementing regulations but the essential difference between other limited appointments and the tem- porary is that if you are less than a year, temporary, you are under social security rather than a Government retirement plan and you don't earn leave. Mr. FASCELL. And all of that is fixed by regulation? Mr. MICHEL. Well, it is fixed by other laws which are implemented by regulation-by the leave act and the retirement law. Mr. FASCELL. I see. Mr. MICHEL. This is essentially a cross-reference. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Then these time periods were made keeping in mind requirements of other laws? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. As far as benefits are concerned. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. We are not at cross purposes? Mr. MICHEL. No, we are not. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, the time periods in section 331 have that in mind? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. OK. That clarifies it for me. Thank you. Any other questions on section 331? If not, we will go to section 332. Mr. MICHEL. Section 332 concerns reemployment rights of a career Federal employee who accepts a limited appointment in the Foreign Service with the consent of his or her agency. Such an employee is en- titled, as under present law, to be reemployed in their former position or an equivalent position at the expiration of their limited Foreign Service appointment. Mr. FASCELL. Is that the present law? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. There is present law with respect to Foreign Service Reserve officers. This broadens this so that other personnel would also have the rights that are contained in the present law. Mr. FASCELL. When you say "other personnel," does that mean all other personnel or some other personnel? Mr. MICHEL. All other personnel. We have tried to avoid these distinctions by which they are treated differently. We think it is perhaps- Mr. FASCELL. One of the things you are trying to do is to treat all employees the same as far as the application of law is concerned. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. At present if someone comes into the Foreign Service for a limited appointment on the Foreign Service Staff Corps, they would not have statutory reemployment rights. If they came in as a Foreign Service Reserve officer, they would have. We generalize this and say they both have statutory reemployment rights. V. FASCELL. And that is what this section does? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Is this the origination of the so-called parachute con- cept that is bugging you with respect to the Senior Foreign Service? Mr. MICHEL. No, this is when somebody moves from their normal civil service job to work for somebody else for a limited time in the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. I understand that. That raises the issue about moving up and out and then deciding you either can't cut the mustard or for some other reason a change is made. The question then remains whether you should go back to your old position and still be in the Foreign Service. Now at least that is the way I understand the problem. How does the administration address the problem in this bill? For example, what happens if someone goes into the Senior Foreign Serv- ice and stays for a number of years, but then for some reason doesn't work out-or would the circumstances be different? Mr. MICHEL. We think there are very different circumstances. Mr. FASCELL. That individual either stays in or whatever. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. The civil service employee in grade 15 has a vested right in the particular position held by that individual. They are induced to go into the Senior Executive Service and accept the risks and benefits of that Senior Executive Service, and one of the things that is offered as an inducement to leave the security of that GS-15 position is a parachute clause. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, you can go back to the 15 percent if he does not cut it. Mr. MICHEL. If he does not make it in the Senior Executive Service. Now the class 3 Foreign Service officer is subject to selection out for time-in-class or for low ranking already, before going up into the senior ranks. Mr. FASCELL. So if you parachute him back it would be going back- ward trying to solve a problem that you have been trying to solve? . Mr. MICHEL. That is right. We think we are starting from a very different beginning in creating the Senior Foreign Service and ap- plying that to an already existing up or out rank-in-person system. Mr. FASCELL. So if you had a parachute clause applied to the Senior Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Foreign Service, in effect what you would be doing would be limiting the selection-out process. Mr. MICHEL. Yes; we would be recreating the congestion at an- other level. We would be moving the problem instead of solving the problem. Mr. FASCELL. So basically the response which has been made by the organizations who advocate that parachute clause is that the situation is not the same, that they are not analogous. Mr. MICHEL. We believe it is a misplaced analogy. Mr. FASCELL. Not only is the problem different but the history is different? Mr. MICHEL. That is true. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Any other questions on that? Mr. BUCHANAN. I guess I would rather see civil service go toward Foreign Service rather than vice versa. Mr. FASCELL. I think the whole process contemplates a sensible selection-out process predicated on production responsibility and some reasonable balance between that and the old system. Mr. MICHEL. I might add that from the conversations I have had with the members of the career Foreign Service my impression is that there is general support for the preservation of selection out. Mr. FASCELL. You testified to that. AFSA testified to that but the others are still holding out for the parachute clause. It seems to me to be reasonable to sav that the situations are different. Mr. MICHEL. Well, I think they are. Mr. FASCELL. Let's take section 333. Mr. MICHEL. Section 333 is another consolidation of several provi- sions of law concerning employment of family members. Mr. FASCELL. Is there anything new in it? Mr. MICHEL. I don't think there is anything new in subsection (a). It is all there in present law now but it is pulled together. At present, there is a separate law dealing with employment in the foreign national positions. Mr. FASCELL. Jim, when you say it is pulled together, what does that mean? Mr. MICHEL. Well, that means that we have now a section 401 of the State authorization bill of last year that said we should try to hire family members in vacant foreign national positions and convert them for use by American family members. Mr. FASCELL. I remember that, our subcommittee wrote that in. Now what other sections do you pull in? Mr. MICHEL. There was a separate section that was enacted in the same bill that said that we should give equal consideration to family members for filling American positions and that was then provided directly in this section. Mr. FASCELL. So you consolidated 431 and 413 with no substantive change? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Simply grammatical changes. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Then we built in the authorization to use a local compensation plan or an American salary schedule as may be appro- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 priated in the circumstances of the case which is now in section 444 of the Foreign Service Act. Mr. FASCELL. Oh, I see. That is back on the next page. So what you have done is pulled those three sections together. Mr. MICHEL. Well, the provision on the next page in present 444(d) concerns the regulations which we have built in here, too. Mr. FASCELL. Well, let me see if I understand you then. Starting on line 20 on page 21, is that all new? Mr. MICHEL. No. If you look on page 29, the bottom of page 28 and the top of page 29 on the facing page, you will see the authority in present law for local compensation plans for alien employees. Mr. FASCELL. Section 417, you mean? Oh, I see. I am sorry. Section 451. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. It is on the facing page starting at the bottom of page 28 showing the 1946 act and then going up to the top of the page facing 29. It says that "these compensation plans are for employees and for U.S. citizens employed abroad who are family members of personnel." So we have taken that authority and moved it or cross referenced it back in section 333. Mr. FASCELL. And that does not change the substantive application of that section? Mr. MICHEL. No; that is only an additional source for it. Mr. FASCELL. Mrs. Schroeder. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I just wanted to ask: When the Secretary puts to- gether regulations prescribing guidelines, will that include regulations on which pay scale applies or are there regulations on which pay scale applies? In other words, you give equal consideration to employing qualified family members and then the Secretary is going to put together the guidelines. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. I am wondering which pay scale applies and then how you give equal consideration if you have different pay scales applying to different kinds of applicants. Mr. MICHEL. Not to different kinds of applicants. I think the prin- cipal criterion will be how the job is classified. If you have a job that is normally filled by a foreign national, and that job becomes vacant when there is a family member at post who can perform that job, this section says you will give equal consideration to the employment of that family member instead of hiring another foreign national. Mrs. SCHROEDER. And you would use the foreign national pay scale? Mr. MICHEL. In that case. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I see. So equal consideration then means that you are strictly looking at the applicant's qualification? Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Then the regulations will, on the pay issue, be that once the job is classified as a foreign national job there will be equal consideration between foreign nationals and family members but the pay scale will be the same as it was ? Mr. MICHEL. We are still pretty early in the pilot program with this fairly recent authority. That program has been expanded, but I think we really need to get more experience before we can say defi- nitely what the regulations will provide in detail. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am.sure you and'AFSA have expressed some concerns about this section in which the members of the subcommittee have a rather active interest, I must say. What other, kinds of jobs do you envision that might be filled by them under this-section ? Mr. BARNES. Well, in terms of our present practices, there are jobs which are now filled by family members. Mr. FASCELL. Through the normal process. Mr. BARNES. Yes, there are actually several categories. We treat those employed full time as we would any other employee. Then there is a category of people we would employ on a temporary basis and in a type of position we call a temporary or intermittent position and these could be a great variety of jobs-jobs that are ordi- narily filled by Americans. Mr. FASCELL. That is the 5 years or less category? One year or less? Mr. BARNES. I was hestitant when I used the word "temporary" be- cause I was afraid we might get back to that. point. Mr. FASCELL. There is a great necessity for us to be absolutely clear when we are describing something on the record. That is the only rea- son I keep going back. Mr. BARNES. I understand. I was not using it as in the section we pre- viously discussed. We have a category of employment of people where we do not need their services full time. It is temporary in that sense, not full time. We do now employ family members in such, capacities. Mr. FASCELL. You mean part time? Mr. BARNES. Part-time intermittent and temporary. That is one con- cept together. Mr. FASCELL. How about intermittent employees? Do you have those kinds, too? Mr. BARNES. Yes, and we now employ people in such jobs which could be of great variety. Mr. BUCHANAN. You are aware of the concern that was expressed of using family members to replace Foreign Service officers in slots that previously had been classified as regular Foreign Service positions? Mr. BARNES. No, we are not contemplating that. We use these part- time, intermittent, temporary appointments when we have a gap be- tween the departure of one and the arrival of another regular em- ployee. We would use that authority. Mr. BucHANAN. One more word on the other side of the coin. We have been through this exercise several times but this program really is not off the ground in my judgment and understanding. I hope that the presence of this section in the proposed law, along with the lan- guage under the present law, really means that you are going to aggres- sively pursue this matter. Mr. READ. We will, Mr. Buchanan. I found subsequent to the last hearing that the pilot program really had been going along at an al- most nonexistent level. There were actually only two placements from when it was instituted in February or March until through June. We have now made it worldwide, and I do hope we will have some signifi- cant results to post you on by the end of the fiscal year. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Mr. BARNES. We have made this program available on a worldwide basis. Mr. FASCELL. Mrs. Schroeder has another question on this problem. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I just wanted to ask if you have provisions to lo- cate jobs for spouses of Foreign Service officers in Washington when the spouses are rotated back here. Mr. BARNES. You are talking of the sorts of spouses who are not reg- ular members of the Foreign Service? Mrs. SCHROEDER. That is correct. I understand what you are trying in the foreign areas. My question is : Once they come back here, do you help them? Is there any kind of counseling or help for spouses to get back into the mainstream here? Mr. BARNES. Yes. We mentioned the Family Liaison Office which we set up about a year and a half ago and its function, among oth- ers, is to help the transition in this direction as well as the transition in the other direction. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Mr. BUCHANAN. One more question. Are there any positions where there would be a retirement benefit aspect of employment or would all the categories be such that there would not be? Mr. MICHEL. There would be either Social Security if they are less than a year or civil service retirement system if they are Mr. FASCELL. If they qualified for a retirement system. Mr. MICHEL. That is the function of the retirement laws. One more point if I may, Mr. Buchanan. You referred to the AFSA concerns in the implementations of this program or the career personnel of the Service. Subsection (b) of this section at the top of page 22 contained the same admonition that was in section 413 of the previous law, stating positively rather than negatively that employment-under this section must be consistent with the needs of the Service for positions for career personnel. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I'd like to add a comment to Mrs. Schroeder's question in terms of trying to provide employ- ment opportunities for family members who return to the United States. We started some discussions with OPM about ways to enable those people who work abroad under these several programs to obtain credit toward civil service employment upon return to the United States. We are working out procedures so that when they come back they will not be disadvantaged by the virtue of having been overseas if only in terms of time of application. Mr. FASCEL L. Thank you. We will stand in recess until we go cast this vote on the trade bill and we will come right back. [Whereupon, at 10:21 a.m., the subcommittees recessed until 10:37 a.m.] Mr. FASCELL. When we left we had finished 333, I believe, so let's go to 341. Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, section 341 on Diplomatic and Con- sular Commissions is another codification of four existing provisions of law. The only substantive difference is that it refers generally to Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 members of. the Foreign Service rather than separately to Foreign Service officers, Foreign Service Reserve officers, Staff officers and employees and Foreign Service information officers. The only significant difference this makes, I believe, is with respect to the commissioning by the secretary of a member of the service as a vice consul. Under the present law that authority applies only to the Staff Corps. This would be generalized by the bill and could be a use- ful authority, for example, in commissioning officer candidates who have not yet been appointed by the President so that they could be assigned to consular functions more readily. Mr. FASCELL. Do I understand then what you are saying is that the language beginning on line 15 Mr. MICHEL. Line 15, yes, sir, used to apply only to the Staff Corps; now it says "may commission a member of the Service." So this would include, for example, officer candidates. Mr. FASCELL. So the new language is "of the Service." Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. The way I understand it, it makes this authority ap- plicable to anybody in the Service. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. 1'1r. FASCELL. Any other questions on this section? Otherwise, it is simply a rewrite? Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mrs. SCHROEDER. You want to keep the diplomatic corps separate 4 Mr. MICHEL. No; excuse me. There are different commissions, diplo- matic commissions and consular commissions. You will have a mem- ber of the Foreign Service who may be assigned to a consular post or to a diplomatic post but the consul in particular has some functions that are statutory. The best example, I think, is in the notarial area. A consular officer serves as a notary public and can notarize documents presented at the consular post. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Couldn't the diplomatic officer do that? Mr. MICHEL. Some can and some can't. It depends where they are. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I guess we are talking about the two separate cones. One of the things we were talking about was the cone system and how equal they are. Does the cone system inhibit good career ladders for people in the consular corpse. Mr. MICHEL. No; the Foreign Service officer gets appointed today by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is simultaneously commissioned as the secretary in the diplomatic service and a consular officer. What I was suggesting you could do under this section is that before that commissioning process when you are taking the candidate and assigning that candidate to an initial post, you could through the more simple procedure of a secretarial commission enable that officer to be assigned to a consular post to perform functions that require a com- mission under various other statutes. Mr. FASCELL. So following 341 for a moment, the first sentence is the secretarial recommendation to the President. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. On diplomatic and consular commissions or both. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. And you make that distinction of diplomatic and con- sular to retain for diplomatic persons their immunities and privileges? Mr. MICHEL. Privileges and immunities don't derive from the com- mission but rather from the capacity in which the person is assigned. Mr. FASCELL. I guess the question I am asking then is why does it take three paragraphs to cite this authority? The Secretary may recom- mend and the President may with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint any member of the Service, a citizen of the United States, and commission that person as a diplomatic or consular officer. Mr. MICHEL. Well, the second sentence reflects what is in the Con- stitution. The President appoints ambassadors and other public minis- ters and consuls. Mr. FASCELL. Do we have to restate that in the law even though it is in the old law? Mr. MICHEL. We don't have to, but for the same reason we state the President appoints chiefs of mission by and with the advice and con- sent of the Senate, it helps provide a complete statement of the process. Mr. FASCELL. New law. Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, this is for clarity. Mr. MICHEL. Yes; the Secretary recommends, the President appoints. Mr. FASCELL. The Secretary has a direct commissioning authority. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. This third sentence is legally necessary as an exercise of Congress constitutional power to authorize a Cabinet officer to appoint what the Constitution calls an inferior or subordinate officer. Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, may I pursue this for a second? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Mr. LEACH. You were with the American Institute in Taiwan. Do its employees lose their diplomatic and consular function and should such a possibility be noted in the language of the act? Mr. MICHEL. I think that is all covered in the Taiwan Relations Act, Mr. Leach. That act provides that employees of the American Institute in Taiwan may perform functions that will have the effect under U.S. law as if they had been performed by a consular officer. Mr. LEACH. There is no problem with this language with that bizarre exception? Mr. MICHEL. There is not. They leave the Foreign Service to work for the American Institute. The legislation providing for this unique relationship in the case of Taiwan authorizes the negotiation of an agreement for privileges and immunities and deals with the author- ities and powers of the personnel who work for the institute so that they are able to provide a range of services to American firms and citizens comparable to what consular officers can do. Mr. LEACH. There is no problem with being promoted while you are in Taiwan? Mr. MICHEL. No; this is specifically stated in the Taiwan Relations Act and the language of the act talks about reinstatement. I don't remember the exact language but it is reinstatement in the same or a higher position. The administration made clear to the Congress in the course of the consideration of that bill the intention to have the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 selection boards consider people while they were not technically on the rolls because they were working for the institute. Mr. LEACH. My question then is whether there should be any new language reflected here. Mr. MICHEL. I think there is no need for anything additional here. Mr. LEACH. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. One question keeps recurring, however. Why in the present law and in this restatement do we have to have the separate categories of diplomatic or consular officer or both? Why isn't there one descriptive generic term? I don't understand that yet. Mr. MICHEL. This does not have to do with their personnel status. Their personnel status is that they are a member of the Foreign Serv- ice. This has to do with the fact that- Mr. FASCELL. Functional status? Mr. MICHEL. It has to do with their functional status because under international law and practice there are still consulates and there are embassies. Mr. FASCELL. That is what I tried to raise before in talking about diplomatic privileges and immunities, although it does not directly apply. The reason you are using this breakout diplomatic or consular officer is simply international custom and, usage? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir, and Mr. FASCELL. Wait a minute. Let's finish that. Mr. MICHEL. All right. Mr. FASCELL. There is no distinction in our law as far as the in- dividual being a member of the Foreign Service. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Now, he may have different functional duties depend- ing on whether or not he is a diplomatic officer or a consular officer. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. The chapter on assignments, chapter 5, provides for assignment to any post or position. There is no distinction made between consular and diplomatic assignments. Mr. FASCELL. But section 341 is Mrs. Schroeder's original question, simply to lay out in the law a legal distinction between diplomatic and consular commissions. Now if the only purpose of that is interna- tional precedent or usage, then I think we have to be quite clear. Otherwise, I don't see the necessity for the separation. Why do you have to have the authority spelled out as a diplomat or a consular officer in the law if all you are doing is simply meeting what is international custom and usage? Why wouldn't the fact that the individual has been commissioned as a Foreign Service officer meet the requirements of U.S. law? Mr. MICHEL. There are U.S. laws dating from the 18th and 19th centuries on powers and duties and functions of diplomatic officers and, more particularly, consular officers-the laws relating to no- tarials, the laws relating to services to American seamen, the laws relating to conservation of the estates of deceased Americans. Mr. FASCELL. What you are saying is that in a series of U.S. laws you have a separate category for the consular function. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. Which cannot be integrated into the laws of the Foreign Service? Mr. MICHEL. It has to do with the individual's particular assign- ment at a particular time and not with their personnel status. We are frequently called upon to- Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me now. Can any other person other than a Foreign Service officer be clothed with the consular duties and respon- sibilities under other laws? Mr. MICHEL. Congress could by statute, I think, authorize Mr. FASCELL. Any person. Mr. MICHEL [continuing]. Any person to perform the functions of a consular officer. Mr. FASCELL. In effect we did that in the Taiwan legislation. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. A foreign government might not accept or permit a person who is not a consular officer to perform those functions in its territory because it would be outside the normal arrangements under international law and practice whereby there are existing laws and procedures for ac- creditation of diplomats for notification of consular personnel. This is a historical distinction that persists into the 20th century. So if we notify someone to the foreign government as a consular officer, they say, OK, he can come in and perform consular functions. Mr. FASCELL. He has no diplomatic status? Mr. MICHEL. Unless simultaneously assigned to a diplomatic mis- sion. We have some people who are notified as members of the diplo- matic mission and they are also notified as consular officers. Mr. FASCELL. But the acceptance process and the accreditation process is different? Mr. MICHEL. That is right, and that is a matter of international law. Mr. FASCELL. Let's take an example. Let's just for the moment as- sume that there are no categorical divisions within the State Depart- ment personnel system. Mr. MICHEL. All right. Mr. FASCELL. They are just wiped out, there are no cones. Now what does this section do? Mr. MICHEL. This says that you can take any member of this unified Foreign Service and assign that person to a position in a consulate or to an Embassy in a diplomatic capacity and you can provide that per- son with a commission that is evidence of his or her authority to act in a consular capacity or a diplomatic capacity as the case may be. Mr. FASCELL. So the fact that you have categorical distinctions by rules and regulations within the personnel system really makes no dif- ference as far as the statutory responsibilities are concerned, and the consular statutory responsibilities are not all in this statute? Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. That leads to the next question. How many of those statutes do we have, and where' are they? We ought to have those for the record. I don't know whether we have given any thought to the integration of those statutory responsibilities in this law but we cer- tainly ought not to just pass over that. If we are going to go to this kind of trouble, we ought to take a look at that. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. We can provide those for the record, Mr. Chairman. They are found primarily in subchapter X of chapter 14 in 22 U.S. Code. [The material referred to follows:] LEGAL BASIS FOR THE FUNCTIONS OF U.S. CONSULAR OFFICERS ABROAD The Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended provides generally for the com- missioning of Foreign Service officers and employees as consular officers; and the assignment of such officers and employees to post abroad.' However, the Act does not purport to specify the functions of consular officers. Rather, it directs the officers and employees of the Foreign Service, under the direction of the Sec- retary of State, to "perform the duties and comply with the obligations resulting from the nature of their appointments or assignments or imposed on them by the terms of any law or by any order or regulation issued pursuant to law or by any international agreement to which the United States is a party."' In addition, the Act authorizes the Secretary of State to prescribe regulations consistent with law "in relation to the duties, functions and obligations of con- sular officers. * * *"A The proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 contains similar provisions, and does not depart from the general scope and content of the 1946 Act. The Foreign Service Act thus merely acknowledges the existence of other authorities which determine the rights and duties of consular officers. Statutory sources of consular rights and duties are collected in subchapter x of chapter 14 of title 22, United States Code (copy attached). This subchapter contains 31 sections, generally derived from eighteenth and nineteenth century statutes, dealing with such diverse matters as solemnization of marriages, conservation of estates of decedents, certification of invoices, retention of papers of American vessels, and depositions and notarial acts. Other statutes specify the authority of consular officers with respect to visas,' assistance to American vessels and eeamen,7 and customs matters.' In addition, consular officers are authorized by regulation' to issue passports pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 211a, and their acts are given significance under some State laws " Consular functions are also specified in the various consular conventions and related treaties to which the United States is a party. These treaties reflect the views of the parties as to the appropriateness of various activities as legitimate consular functions. The most widely representative view of international prac- tice in this regard is that set out in the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.11 The Vienna Convention is in force for the United States and some ninety-one other countries. Article 5 of the Convention (copy attached) lists twelve general areas of consular responsibility, including such matters as pro- tecting the interests of the sending State and its nationals, promoting commerce, performing notarials, administrative and quasi-judicial services and dealing with ships and aircraft of the sending State. Taken together, the laws of the United States and relevant treaties make clear that consuls are expected to perform a wide range of facilitative services on behalf of nationals of the sending State. They record births, deaths and mar- riages, notarize papers, issue travel documents, conserve estates of decedents, assist seamen, the ill and incarcerated, transmit letters rogatory, take deposi- tions, and provide information on local business conditions. The implementing regulations of the Secretary of Stater' provide a fuller account of the functions of United States consular officers. 1 22 U.S.C. 907, 924, 938. ' 22 U.S.C. 909. 923, 937. ' 22 U.S.C. 841. 4 22 U.S.C. 842. ' H.R. 4674, 96th Cong., 1st Bess., U 104(1), 201, 341, 511. ' Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. * See, e.g., 46 U.S.C. 656-659, 662-664, 677, 679. 682-685. s See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 338-341, 1482, 1487, 1527, 1707. '22 CFR 151.21(b). 10 See, e.g., 22 CPR ? 92.5. 1121 UST 77, TIAS 6820. 1' 22 CPR, ch. I, subch. H-K. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 SUBCHAPTER X-POWERS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES OF CONSULAR OFFICERS GENERALLY ? 1171. General application of provisions to consular officers The various provisions of sections 168, 1173 to 1177, 1180, 1182, 1184, 1185. 1187 to 1194, and 1196 to 1203 of this title which are expressed in terms of gen- eral application to any particular classes of consular officers, shall be deemed to apply as well to all other classes of such officers, so far as may be consistent with the subject matter of the same and with the treaties of the United States. (R.S. ? 1689.) ? 1172. Solemnization of marriages Marriages in presence of any consular officer of the United States in a foreign country, between persons who would be authorized to marry if residing in the District of Columbia, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, and shall have the same effect as if solemnized within the United States. And such consular officer shall, in all cases, give to the parties married before them a certificate of such marriage, and shall send another certificate thereof to the Department of State, there to be kept ; such certificate shall specify the names of the parties, their ages, places of birth, and residence. (R. S. ? 4082.) ? 1178. Protests Consuls and vice consuls shall have the right, in the ports or places to which they are severally appointed, of receiving the protests or declarations which captains, masters, crews, passengers, or merchants, who are citizens of the United States, may respectively choose to make there, and also such as any foreigner may choose to make before them relative to the personal interest of any citizen of the United States. (R.S. ? 1707; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, ? 39, 62 Stat. 992.) ? 1174. Lists and returns of seamen and vessels, etc. Every consular officer shall keep a detailed list of all seamen and mariners shipped and discharged by him, specifying their names and the names of the vessels on which they are shipped and from which they are discharged, and the payments, if any, made on account of each so discharged ; also of the number of the vessels arrived and departed, the amounts of their registered tonnage, and the number of their seamen and mariners, and of those who are protected, and whether citizens of the United States or not, and as nearly as possible the nature and value of their cargoes, and where produced, and shall make returns of the same, with their accounts and other returns, to the Secretary of Commerce. ? 1175. Estates of decedents generally; General Accounting Office as conservator It shall be the duty of a consular officer, or, if no consular officer is present, a diplomatic officer, under such procedural regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe- First. To take possession and to dispose of the personal estate left by any citizen of the United States, except a seaman who is a member of the crew of an American vessel, who shall die within or is domiciled at time of death within his jurisdiction : Provided, That such procedure is authorized by treaty pro- visions or permitted by the laws or authorities of the country wherein the death occurs, or the decendent is domiciled, or that such privilege is accorded by established usage: Provided further, That the decedent shall leave in the country where the death occurred or where he was domiciled, no legal representative, partner in trade, or trustee by him appointed to take care of his personal estate. A consular officer or, in his absence, a diplomatic officer shall act as the provisional conservator of the personal property within his jurisdiction of a deceased citizen of the United States but, unless authorized by treaty provisions, local law, or usage, he shall not act as administrator of such personal property. He shall render assistance in guarding, collecting, and transmitting the property to the United States to be disposed of according to the law of the decendent's domicile. Second. After having taken possession of the personal property, as provi- sional conservator, to invnetory and carefully appraise the effects, article by article, with the assistance of two competent persons who, together with such Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 officer, shall sign the inventory and annex thereto an appropriate certificate as to the accuracy of the appraised value of each article. Third. To collect the debts due to the decedent in his jurisdiction and pay from the estate the obligations owed there by the decedent. Fourth. To sell at auction, after reasonable public notice, unless the amount involved does not justify such expenditure, such part of the estate as shall be of a perishable nature, and after reasonable public notice and notice to next of kin if they can be ascertained by reasonable diligence such further part, If any, as shall be necessary for the payment of the decedent's debts incurred in such country, and funeral expenses, and expenses incident to the disposition of the estate. If, at the expiration of one year from the date of death (or for such additional period as may be required for final settlement of the estate), no claimant shall appear, the residue of the estate, with the exception of invest- ments of bonds, shares of stocks, notes of indebtedness, jewelry or heirlooms, or other articles having a sentimental value, shall be sold. Fifth. To transmit to the General Accounting Office the proceeds of the sale (and any unsold effects, such as investments of bonds, shares of stocks, notes of indebtedness, jewelry or heirlooms, or other articles having a sentimental value), there to lie. h21d in trust for the legal claimant. If, however, at any time prior to such transmission, the decedent's legal representative should ap- pear and demand the proceeds and effects in the officer's hands, he shall deliver them to such representative after having collected the prescribed fee therefor. The Comptroller General of the United States, or such member of the Account- ing Office as he may duly empower to act as his representative for the purpose, shall act as conservator of such parts of these estates as may be received by the General Accounting Office or are in its possession, and may, when deemed to be in the interest of the estate, sell such effects, including bonds, shares of stock. notes of indebtedness, jewerly, or other articles, which have heretofore or may hereafter be so received, and pay the expenses of such sale out of the proceeds : Provided, That application for such effects shall not have been made by the legal claimant within six years after their receipt. The Comptroller General is author- ized, for and in behalf of the estate of the deceased, to receive any balances due to such estates, to draw therefor on banks, safe deposits, trust or loan companies, or other like institutions, to endorse all checks, bill of exchange, promissory notes, and other evidences of indebtedness due to such estates, and take such other action as may be deemed necessary for the conservation of such estates. The net proceeds of such sales, together with such other moneys as may be col- lected by him, shall be deposited into the Treasury to a fund in trust for the legal claimant and reported to the Secretary of State. If no claim to the effects the proceeds of which have been so deposited shall have been received from a legal claimant of the deceased within six years from the date of the receipt of the effects by the General Accounting Office, the funds so deposited, with any remaining unsold effects. less transmittal charges, shall be transmitted by that office to the proper officer of the State or Territory of the last domicile in the United States of the deceased citizen, if known, or, if not, such funds shall be covered into the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts on account of proceeds of deceased citizens, and any such remaining unsold effects shall be disposed of by the General Accounting Office in such man- ner as, in the judgment of the Comptroller General, is deemed appropriate. or they may be destroyed if considered no longer possessed of any value : Provided. That when the estate shall be valued in excess of $500, and no claim therefor has been presented to the General Accounting Office by a legal claimant within the period specified in this paragraph or the legal claimant is unknown, before dis- position of the estate as provided herein, notice shall be given by publishing once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in the country of the last known domicile of the deceased, in the United States, the expense thereof to be deducted from the proceeds of such estate, and any lawful claim received as the result of such advertisement shall be adjusted and settled as provided for herein. (R. S. ? 1709; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 223, 36 Stat. 1083; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, ? 304, 42 Stat. 24; July 12, 1940, ch. 618, 54 Stat. 758.) ? 1176. Notification of death of decedent; transmission of inventory of effects For the information of the representative of the deceased, the consular officer, or, if no consular officer is present, a diplomatic officer, in the settlement of his estate shall immediately notify his death in one of the gazettes published in the consular district, and also to the Secretary of State, that the same may be nbti- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003ROO0100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 fled in the State to which the deceased belonged ; and he shall, as soon as may be, transmit to the Secretary of State an inventory of the effects of the deceased taken as before directed. When a citizen of the United States dies in a foreign country and leaves, by any lawful testamentary disposition, special directions for the custody and management, by the consular officer, or in his absence a diplomatic officer, within whose jurisdiction the death occurred, of the personal property in the foreign country which he possessed at the time of death, such officer shall, so far as the laws of the foreign country permit, strictly observe such directions if not contrary to the laws 'of the United States. If such citizen has named, by any lawful testa- mentary disposition, any other person than a consular officer or diplmatic officer to take charge of and manage such property, it shall be the duty of the officer, whenever required by the person so named, to give his official aid in whatever way may be practicable to facilitate the proceedings of such person in the lawful execution of his trust, and, so far as the laws of the country or treaty provisions permit, to protect the property of the deceased from any interference by the au- thorities of the country where such citizen died. To this end it shall be the duty of the consular officer, or if no consular officer is present a diplomatic 'officer, to safeguard the decedent's property by placing thereon his official seal and to break and remove such seal only upon the request of the person designated by the deceased to take charge of and manage his property. (R.S. ? 1711; July 12, 1940, ch. 618, 54 Stat. 758.) ? 1178. Bond as administrator or guardian; action on bond No consular officer of the United States shall accept an appointment from any foreign state as administrator, guardian, or to any other office or trust for the settlement or conservation of estates of deceased persons or of their heirs or of persons under legal disabilities, without executing a bond, with security, to be approved by the Secretary of State, and in a penal sum to be fixed by him and in such form as he may prescribe, conditioned for the true and faithful performance of all his duties according to law and for the true and faithful accounting for delivering, and paying over to the persons thereto entitled of all moneys, goods, effects, and other property which shall come to his hands or to the hands of any other person to his use as such administrator, guardian, or in other fiduciary capacity. Said bond shall be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury. In case of a breach of any such bond, any person injured by the failure of such officer faithfully to discharge the duties of said trust according to law, may institute, in his own name and for his sole use, a suit upon said bond and there- upon recover such damages as shall be legally assessed, with costs of suit, for which execution may issue in due form; but if such party fails to recover in the suit, judgment shall be rendered and execution may issue against him for costs in favor of the defendant ; and the United States shall in no case be liable for the same. The said bond shall remain, after any judgment rendered thereon, as a security for the benefit of any person injured by a breach of the condition of the same until the whole penalty has been recovered. (June 30, 1902, ch. 1331, ? 1, 32 Stat. 546.) ? 1179. Penalty for failure to give bond and for embezzlement Every consular officer who accepts any appointment to any office of trust mentioned in section 1178 of this title without first having complied with the provisions thereof by due execution of a bond as therein required, or who shall willfully fail or neglect to account for, pay over, and deliver any money, prop- erty, or effects so received to any person lawfully entitled thereto, after having been requested by the latter, his representative or agent so to do, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement and shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and by a fine of not more than $5,000. (June 30, 1902, ch. 1331, ? 2, 32 Stat. 547.) ? 1180. Certification of invoices generally No consular officer shall certify any invoice unless he is satisfied that the per- son making oath there to is the person he represents himself to be, that he is a credible person, and that the statements made under such oath are true; and he shall, thereupon, by his certificate, state that he was so satisfied. (R.S. ? 1715.) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 ? 1181. Fees for certification of invoices Fees for the consular certification of invoices shall be, and they are, included with the fees for official services for which the President is authorized by sec- tion 1201 of this title to prescribe rates or tariffs. (Apr. 5,1906, ch. 1366, ? 9, 34 Stat. 101.) ? 1182. Exaction of excessive fees for verification of invoices; penalty The fee provided by law for the verification of invoices by consular officers shall, when paid, be held to be a full payment for furnishing blank forms of declaration to be signed by the shipper, and for making signing, and sealing the certificate of the consular officer thereto ; and any consular officer who, under pretense of charging for blank forms, advice, or clerical services in the prepara- tion of such declaration or certificate, charges or receives any fee greater in amount than that provided by law for the verification of invoices, or who de- mands or receives for any official services, or who allows any clerk or subordinate to receive for any such service, any fee or reward other than the fee provided by law for such service, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $2,000, and shall be removed from his office. (R.S. ? 1716.) ? 1183. Destruction of old invoices The Secretary of State is authorized to cause, from time to time, the destruc- tion of invoices that have been filed in the consular offices for a period of more than five years. (Feb. 24, 1903, ch. 753, 32 Stat. 854.) ? 1184. Restriction as to certificate for goods from countries adjacent to United States No consular officer of the United States shall grant a certificate for goods, wares, or merchandise shipped from countries adjacent to the United States which have passed a consulate after purchase for shipment. (R.S. ? 1717.) ? 1185. Retention of papers of American vessels until payment of demands and wages All consular officers are authorized and required to retain in their possession all the papers of vessels of the United States, which shall be deposited with them as directed by law, till payment shall be made of all demands and wages on account of such vessels. (R.S. ? 1718.) ? 1186. Fees for services to American vessels or seamen prohibited No fees named in the tariff of consular fees prescribed by order of the Presi- dent shall be charged or collected by consular officers for the official services to American vessels and seamen. Consular officers shall furnish the master of every such vessel with an itemized statement of such services performed on account of said vessel, with the fee so prescribed for each service, and make a detailed report to the Secretary of the Treasury of such services and fees, under such regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe. (June 26, 1884, ch. 121, ? 12, 23 Stat. 56.) ? 1187. Profits from dealings with discharged seamen; prohibition No consular officer, nor any person under any consular officer shall make any charge or receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation, by way of commission or otherwise, for receiving or disbursing the wages or extra wages to which any seaman or mariner is entitled who is discharged in any foreign country, or for any money advanced to any such seaman or mariner who seeks relief from any consulate ; nor shall any consular officer, or any person under any consular officer, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any profit derived from clothing, boarding or otherwise supplying or sending home any such sea- man or mariner. Such prohibition as to profit, however, shall not be construed to relieve or prevent any such officer who is the owner of or otherwise interested in any vessel of the United States from transporting in such vessel any such Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 seaman or mariner, or from receiving or being interested in such reasonable allowance as may be made for such transportation by law. (R. S. ? 1719; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 3, 34 Stat. 100.) ? 1188. Valuation of foreign coins in payment of fees Consuls, vice consuls, and consular agents in the Dominion of. Canada, in the collection of official fees, shall receive foreign moneys at the rate given in the Treasury schedule of the value of foreign coins. (R. S. ? 1722 ; Apr. 6, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 3, 34 Stat. 100.) ? 1189. Exaction of excessive fees generally; penalty of treble amount Whenever any consular officer collects, or knowingly allows to be collected for any service, any other or greater fees than are allowed by law for such service, he shall, besides his liability to refund the same, be liable to pay to the person by whom or in whose behalf the same are paid, treble the amount of the unlawful charge so collected, as a penalty, to be recovered with costs, in any proper form of action, by such person for his own use. And in any such case the Secretary of the Treasury may retain, out of the compensation of such officer. the amount of such overcharge and of such penalty, and charge the same to such officer in account, and may thereupon refund such unlawful charge, and pay such penalty to the person entitled to the same if he shall think proper so to do. (R. S. ? 1723.) ? 1190. Liability for uncollected fees Every consul general, consul, or vice consul appointed to perform the duty of any such officer, who omits to collect any fees which he is entitled to charge for any official service, shall be liable to the United States therefor, as if he had collected the same ; unless, upon good cause shown therefor, the Secretary of the Treasury shall thinx proper to remit the same. (R. S. ? 1724; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 3,34 Stat. 100.) ? 1191. Returns as to fees by officers compensated by fees All consular agents, as are allowed for their compensation the whole or any part of the fees which they may collect, shall make returns in such manner as the Comptroller General of the United States shall prescribe, of all such fees as they or any person in their behalf so collect. (R.S. ? 1725; July 31, 1894, ch. 174, ? 5, 28 Stat. 206; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 3, 34 Stat. 100; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, ? 304,42 Stat. 24.) ? 1192. Receipt for fees; numbering receipts Every consular officer shall give receipts for all fees collected for his official services, expressing the particular services for which the same were collected. He shall number all receipts given by him for fees received for official services, in the order of their dates, beginning with number one at the commencement of the period of his service, and on the first day of January in every year thereafter. (R.S. ?? 1726, 1727.) ? 1193. Registry of fees Every consular officer shall also register in a book to be kept by him for that purpose all fees so received by him, in the order in which they are received specifying each item of service and the amount received therefor, from whom and the dates when received, and if for any service connected with any vessel, the name thereof, and indicating what items and amounts are embraced in each receipt given by him therefor, and numbering the same according to the number of the receipts, respectively, so that the receipts and register shall correspond with each other, and he shall, in such register, specify the name of the person for whom, and the date when he shall grant, issue, or verify any passport, certify any invoice, or perform any other offical in the entry of the receipt of the fees therefor, and also number each consular act so receipted for with the number of such receipt, and as shown by such register. (R.S. ? 1727.) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 ? 1194. Account of fees; certification Every consular officer responsible for the collection of fees, in rendering his account of fees received shall furnish a full transcript of the register which he is required to keep, and certify that such transcript is an accurate and com- plete record of all fees received for the period shown. (R. S. ? 1728; June 28, 1955, ch. 196, 69 Stat. 187.) ? 1195. Notarial acts, oaths, afrmations, affidavits, and depositions; fees Every consular officer of the United States is required, whenever application is made to him therefor, within the limits of his consulate, to administer to or take from any person any oath, affirmation, affidavit, or deposition, and to per- form any other notarial act which any notary public is required or authorized by law to do within the United States ; and for every such notarial act performed he shall charge in each instance the appropriate fee prescribed by the President. under section 1201 of this title. (Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 7, 34 Stat. 101.) ? 1197. Posting rates of fees It shall be the duty of all consular officers at all times to keep posted up in their offices, respectively, in a conspicuous place, and subject to the examination of all persons interested therein, a copy of such rates or tariffs as shall be in force. (R.S. ? 1731.) ? 1198. Embezzlement of fees or of effects of American citizens Every consular officer who willfully neglects to render true and just quarterly accounts and returns of the business of his office, and of moneys received by him for the use of the United States, or who neglects to pay over any balance of said moneys due to the United States at the expiration of any quarter, before the expiration of the next succeeding quarter, or who shall receive money, property, or effects belonging to a citizen of the United States and shall not within a reasonable time after demand made upon him by the Secretary of State or by such citizen, his executor, administrator, or legal representative, account for and pay over all moneys, property, and effects, less his lawful fees, due to such citizen, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement, and shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, and by a fine of not more than 2,000. (R. S. ? 1734; Dec. 21,1898, ch. 36, ? 3,30 Stat. 771.) ? 1200. False certificate as to ownership of property If any consul or vice consul falsely and knowingly certifies that property be- longing to foreigners is property belong to citizens of the United States, he shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than three years, and by a fine of not more than $10,000. (R.S. ? 1737 ; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 3, 34 Stat. 100.) ? 1201. Regulation of fees by President The President is authorized to prescribe from time to time, the rates or tariffs of fees to be charged for official services, and to designate what shall be regarded as official services, besides such as are expressly declared by law, in the business of the several embassies, legations, and consulates, and to adapt the same, by such differences as may be necessary or proper, to each embassy, legation, or consulate ; and it shall be the duty of all officers and persons connected with such embassies, legations, and consulates to collect for such official services such and only such fees as may be prescribed for their respective embassies, legations, and consulates, and such rates or tariffs shall be reported annually to Congress . (R. S. ? 1745 ; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 3, 34 Stat. 100.) ? 1202. Medium for payment of fees All fees collected by diplomatic and consular officers for and in behalf of the United States shall be collected in the coin of the United States, or at its repre- sentative value in exchange. (R.S. ? 1746.) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 ? 1203. Depositions and notarial acts; perjury Every secretary of embassy or legation and consular officer is authorized, when- ever he is required or deems it necessary or proper so to do at the post, port, place, or within the limits of his embassy, legation, or consulate, to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, affidavit, or deposition, and to perform any notarial act which any notary public is required or authorized by law to do within the United States. Every such oath, affirmation, affidavit, deposition, and notarial act administered, sworn, affirmed, taken, had. or done, by or before any such officer, when certified under his hand and seal of office, shall be as valid, and of like force and effect within the United States, to all intents and purposes, as if administered, sworn, affirmed, taken, had, or done, by or before any other person within the United States duly authorized and competent thereto. If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, or by any means procure any person to commit perjury in any such oath, affirmation, affidavit, or deposition, within the intent and meaning of any Act of Congress now or hereafter made, such of- fender may be charged, proceeded against, tried, convicted, and dealt with in any district of the United States, in the same manner, in all respects, as if such offense had been committed in the United States, before any officer duly authorized therein to administer or take such oath, affirmation, affidavit, or deposition, and shall be subject to the same punishment and disability therefor as are or shall be prescribed by any such act for such offense ; and any document purporting to have affixed, impressed, or subscribed thereto, or thereon the seal and signature of the officer administering or taking the same in testimony thereof, shall be ad- mitted in evidence without proof of any such seal or signature being genuine or of the official character of such person ; and if any person shall forge any such seal or signature, or shall tender in evidence any such document with a false or counterfeit seal or signature thereto, knowing the same to be false or counter- feit, he shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be imprisoned not exceeding three years nor less than one year, and fined, in a sum not to exceed $3,000, and may be charged, proceeded against, tried, con- victed, and dealt with therefor in the district where he may be arrested or in custody. (R. S. ? 1750. Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, ? 3, 34 Stat. 100.) VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS Consular functions consist in : (a) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits permitted by international law ; (b) furthering the development of commercial, economic, cultural and scientific relations between the sending State and the receiving State and otherwise promoting friendly relations between them in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention ; (c) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the commercial, economic, cultural and scientific life of the receiving State, reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State and giving infor- mation to persons interested ; (d) issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending State, and visas or appropriate documents to persons wishing to travel to the sending State ; (e) helping and assisting nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending State ; (f) acting as notary and civil registrar and in capacities of a similar kind, and performing certain functions of an administrative nature, pro- vided that there is nothing contrary thereto in the laws and regulations of the receiving State ; (g) safeguarding the interests of nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending State in cases of succession mortis causa in the territory of the receiving State, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State ; Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 (h) safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons; (i) subject to the practices and procedures obtaining in the receiving State, representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals of the sending State before the tribunals and other authorities of the receiv- ing State, for the purpose of obtaining, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals, where, because of absence or any other reason, such nationals are unable at the proper time to assume the defense of their rights and interests ; (j) transmitting judicial and extra-judicial documents or executing let- ters rogatory or commissions to take evidence for the courts of the sending State in accordance with international agreements in force or, in the absence of such international agreements, in any other manner compatible with the laws and regulations of the receiving State ; (k) exercising rights of supervision and inspection provided for in the laws and regulations of the sending State in respect of vessels having the nationality of the sending State, and of aircraft registered in that State, and in respect of their crews ; (1) extending assistance to vessels and aircraft mentioned in sub-para- graph (k) of this Article and to their crews, taking statements regarding the voyage of a vessel, examining and stamping the ship's papers, and, without prejudice to the powers of the authorities of the receiving State, conduct- ing investigations into any incidents which occurred during the voyage, and settling disputes of any kind between the master, the officers and the sea- men insofar as this may be authorized by the laws and regulations of the sending State; (m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving State. ? 1204. Authentication of documents of State of Vatican City by consular office in Rome Until the United States shall have consular officer resident in the State of the Vatican City, a copy of any document of record or on file in a public office of said State of the Vatican City, certified by the lawful custodian of such docu- ment, aiay be authenticated, as provided in section 1741 of title 28, by a con- sular officer of the United States resident in the city of Rome, Kingdom of Italy, and such document or record shall when so certified and authenticated, be admis- sible in evidence in any court of the United States. Mr. MICHEL. Someone just reminded me that there are also a lot of State laws that refer to consuls. We cannot really get away from the fact that these historical distinctions exist. Mr. FASCELL. You have to have a designation as a consular officer in order to make it clear to everybody what you are talking about. Mr. MICHEL. The individual has the authority. We are often asked to certify that someone is duly commissioned and qualified to act at a certain location and in order to do that we think that this commis- sioning process is important. Mr. FASCELL. And if you didn't have this authority in law, you would have to do it by regulation anyway. Mr. MICHEL. We would have to do something so that the person who signed that authorization certificate really was acting properly within the scope of their authority. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. FASCELL. Certainly. Mrs. SCHROEDER. What would be wrong with commissioning every- body as both a diplomatic and a consular officer-give everyone a dual commission? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. We do that generally for career people who are going out and who will be subject to various assignments. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So just about everybody that is career gets a dual commission? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Who would not be? Mr. MICHEL. A limited appointment. There is also the possibility that someone who is going out at the junior level as an officer candi- date, as I mentioned, who had not yet gotten a Presidential commis- sion might be given a secretarial vice consul commission so that they could perform these various statutory functions. Mr. FASCELL. Any other questions? All right. Let's go on to the next section. Mr. READ. I might just interject, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The next three chapters contain quite a number of the new provisions which we are proposing. I think you will find that when we get to chapters 7, 8, and 9, just to hold out a light at the' end of the tunnel, it is essentially codification in those particular chapters. But these next ones do require your very close attention. Mr. FASCELL. OK. Chapter 4, Compensation, Section 401. Mr. MICHEL. Section 401 concerns salaries of chiefs of mission. This continues the existing law which provides for four levels of chief of mission salaries, at levels II through V of the Federal executive salary schedule. The difference in subsection (a) is only that existing law says there must be four categories and this subsection says every chief of mission shall be given a salary at any one or the other of those four levels. So it contemplates authority for continued distinctions among chiefs of mission but does not mandate that existing four-tiered structure. The second subsection, subsection (b), is also drawn from existing law. This authorizes an exception to the rule that appointment of a successor vacates the incumbent's appointment. This permits the Am- bassador who is departing the post to continue to be the Ambassador for a period of 50 days while getting back into the assignment pro- cedures, even though a successor has been appointed. Mr. FASCELL. What does the 50-day period mean? Mr. MICHEL. The 50-day period is the period during which the out- going chief of mission can continue to receive the salary for that post as chief of mission. Mr. FASCELL. Is he paid on a monthly basis or semimonthly? Mr. MICHEL. He is paid on a biweekly payroll basis. Mr. FASCELL. Why wouldn't you make it 4 weeks, 6 weeks,1 month ? That is the question I am asking. What is the significance of 50 days instead of 49 or 61, if any? Mr. MICHEL. There is nothing magic about 50 days. We simply took it from the 1946 act. It is intended to reflect a reasonable time. Mr. FASCELL. It has no budgetary or administrative significance as far as the Mr. MICHEL. Its only significance as a particular number is historical. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. It was a congressional compromise of some kind? Mr. MICHEL. Perhaps it was in 1946. Mr. BUCHANAN. What would be the normal time of transition? Would you ever need the 50 days? Mr. FASCELL. It depends on the Ambassador's political skill. Mr. BARNES. If I were to draw an average, I think we do, use less than 50 but I can remember in the last 11/2 years a couple of cases where we used the full 50. Mr. FASCELL. I remember during one administration one Ambassa- dor wandering around for 2 years. Mr. MICHEL. On the expiration of the 50 days, there is not a termina- tion of salary but reversion to the salary of whatever class the career officer held. Mr. BUCHANAN. Would you envision an instance where you need more than 50 days? Mr. BARNES. On the basis of my experience so far, no. Mr. FASCELL. If you tried to increase that, there would probably be a revolution in the ranks. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Is the chief of mission going to receive pay at level 2 or level 5 or somewhere in between? Mr. MICHEL. There is an existing structure of post classification based essentially on the size and complexity of the mission. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Is it size and complexity of our own mission? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Or the hardship post? Mr. MICHEL. No, it is the size of the U.S. mission and the number of people who are there and the range of things it does. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Would you get more money in Paris than in Uganda? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. BARNES. It has to do with the significance of our relations with that country, the scope of the responsibilities that the Ambassador has which are not tied into size but are Mrs. SCHROEDER. And you rejected the single pay rate; is that correct? Mr. BARNES. We do provide for the possibility of changing. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Why? Do you think there is that much difference's Is it that significant? Mr. READ. We found, Mrs. Schroeder, that there was great reluctance to abandon the present arrangement at this time because there are obvi- ously significant differences of responsibility. As you will see in the next section, those career persons who are appointed will have the opportunity to opt for the post classification pay level or they will be able to retain their regular class compensation and be eligible for per- formance pay. It did seem wise not to do away with post classification at this time. Under this language, a change is permitted if it is deemed sensible in the future. Mr. FASCELL. Section 401(b) is a restatement of present law. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. 411 is new? Mr. MICHEL. 411 is new because it contemplates a new category, the Senior Foreign Service. The salaries for the Senior Foreign Service, according to this new section, are established by reference to the maxi- mum and minimum rates for the Senior Executive Service under the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Civil Service Reform Act. We do contemplate at present using three salary levels, three classes, within this Senior Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. Any questions on 411? Let's take 421 before we break for this vote. Mr. MICHEL. Section 421, the Foreign Service schedule, prescribes a single salary rate for the Foreign Service below the Senior Foreign Service threshold. This would replace the two existing schedules for Foreign Service officers and Reserve officers on the one hand and for the Staff Corps on the other. It is limited to the top of a GS-15, which is the breaking point also in the Civil Service Reform Act. The provision for nine classes in this schedule is a prediction. The pay study is still under intensive review within the administration and one outcome might be a nine-class structure. We really have to provide details on this when we have completed the review of the pay study. Mr. BUCHANAN. Which I assume would predate the enactment of this legislation. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. BUCHANAN. Everything may predate the enactment of this legis- lation. That is what I heard yesterday. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I was going to ask some questions about the Hay Study. Have you not been subject to the pay comparability act? Then how did you get so far behind? Mr. BARNES. That is what we keep asking ourselves. Mr. FASCELL. Other than OMB and Congress, what has been the problem? Mr. BARNES. Probably some initiative on, our own part trying to bring data up to date so we had the basis for raising the question in a sensible way which we now have in the form of the study. Mrs. SCHROEDER. But this may all be changed; is that correct? I mean, you may come out with a whole new pay scale. Mr. MICHEL. Yes, but we cannot provide you the chart to show you what it is at this time. Mr. FASCELL. Well, obviously we are going to require that before we move too far along. Mr. MICHEL. Yes.' I might just add that there are a couple of objectives; one is com- parability and the other is to facilitate interchange, first by having the Foreign Service schedule line up a little bit better with* the civil service pay scale, and, second, to avoid the artificial distinctions that we now have with the Staff Corps being under a separate schedule. Mr. FASCELL. Right now you have-two separate schedules? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. All right. We are going to have to go vote. [Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., the subcommittees recessed until 11:31 a.m.] Mr. FASCELL. Let's go on. We are going to keep being interrupted, Mr. Secretary, I am afraid, so let's see if we cannot proceed until 12 o'clock and then we will have to call this off and start up again some other day as quickly as possible. Where were we? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. Section 431, Mr. Chairman, assignment to a salary class. This section is a change from the existing law only with respect to Foreign Service officers. It provides that the Secretary of State will assign a member to a salary class. This reflects the rank-in-person sys- tem rather than the rank-in-job system. The exceptions to that pro- cedure are the chief of mission and the Senior Foreign Service member whose salary is determined by the terms of the appointment. Mr. FASCELL. What about subsection (b) ? Mr. MICHEL. In subsection (b), the first sentence reflects existing law. It simply reaffirms that the member can be assigned from place to place and from job to job but their salary is personal to them and not determined by the job to which they are assigned. The second sentence states something affirmatively that has been the case generally in the past, that members of the Foreign Service can have their salary changed only in accordance with chapter 6 which provides the procedures for competitive promotion on a merit basis. The reference to chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, is a refer- ence to the chapter concerning reductions in force and this reference preserves the current application of the reduction-in-force procedures to the Foreign Service members who are not Presidential appointees. That is the present law. Mr. FASCELL. Any questions on this section? Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note in passing that we have gone from "his" appointment in the old law to "his" or "her" in the new draft. I guess that represents some kind of progress. Mr. MICHEL. That is a very deliberate change, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. SCIIROEDER. And veterans preference points apply, right? Mr. MICHEL. No, as to veterans, the fact of status as a veteran or disabled veteran is to be given consideration for appointment as a Foreign Service officer or Foreign Service information officer. It is not a point system. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Doesn't chapter 35 Mr. MICHEL. Chapter 35 is reductions in force. There is a veteran's retention in that. There has been very little use of the reduction-in- force authorities in the Foreign Service. No one here can think of a situation in State where there has been a reduction in force. There have been occasions in the Agency for International Development where there have been major program changes that have required this. The preference and the more normal procedure would be to use this act and the provisions for selection out to avoid overstaffing. This would be on the comparative merit basis in the procedure of the selec- tion board. Mr. FASCELL. Let me ask you this. Since RIF is across the board Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL [continuing]. And this is a supplementary law, who has the elective right-management? The Department, in other words? There is no elective right in the employees, is there? Mr. MICHEL. On a RIF? Mr. FASCELL. No. Mr. MICHEL. Excuse me. Mr. FASCELL. On either the selection out process under this law or RIF under title 5? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. The number of personnel Mr. FASCELL. In other words, the State Department could use RIF under title 5 if it wanted to? Mr. MICHEL. If it wanted to. Mr. FASCELL. But the election or selection of which law to use is not an employee right? Mr. MICHEL. No, that is right. I was trying to recall the list of man- agement rights which are reserved in chapter 10 and I think that the combination of determinations on,budget and numbers of personnel would preserve that as a management thing. Mr. FASCELL. Title 5 does not give the employee the right in terms of RIF except those rights which are spelled out in the law? Mr. MICHEL. And the civil service regulations which would be appli- cable if an election were made to use that procedure. Mr. FAS'CELL. Well, I had hoped that we would get a little further along, but it looks useless so we will do at least 5 more minutes. Let's go to section 441. Mr. MICHEL. Section 441 provides authority for performance pay for the Senior Foreign Service. This is drawn essentially from the Civil Service Reform Act provisions on performance pay and rank awards for the senior executive service. This is an award made on an annual basis in addition to basic salary. Those who are eligible are those who are serving in career Senior Foreign Service appointment or as career candidates. That parallels the Civil Service Reform Act. We have also provided performance pay for those people who leave the senior executive service, where they were eligible for performance pay, and take a limited appointment in the Foreign Service. So their rights and benefits remain essentially unaffected by taking that tem- porary-excuse me, limited Foreign Service appointment. The amount of the performance pay, the basic award is limited to a maximum 20 percent of salary and not more than one-half the mem- bers of the Senior Foreign Service may be granted those awards in any year. Additional awards beyond the 20-percent limitation may be made of up to $10,000 for not to exceed 5 percent of the Senior Foreign Service and up to $20,000 for not to exceed an additional 1 percent. That is all within the 50-percent limit. The additional awards above the 20 percent of salary would be made by the President as under the Civil Service Reform Act, and this would be a judgment across agency lines as to an outstanding 5 percent and 1 percent on an annual basis. Mr. FASCELL. Is there any substantial difference in section 441 and the civil service or are the only changes conforming changes? Mr. MICHEL. The only thing that we have not taken from the Civil Service Reform Act is the 5-year bar between awards for meritorious or distinguished service. That frankly didn't seem to be a desirable limitation in that it says no matter how good somebody is, we cannot recognize that any more often than 5 years. Mr. FASCELL. Any questions on section 441 ? Well, we will start then next time with section 442. I want to thank you very much, gentlemen, for being with us today. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question as to whether all performance awards could go to the State Department Senior Foreign Service rather than AID or ICA ? Mr. MICHEL. No. Each agency head makes the awards up to the 20 percent and then the President makes the awards on an inter- agency basis for distinguished or meritorious service. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Mr. READ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you. The subcommittees stand adjourned subject to the calls of the Chairs. [Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittees adjourned.] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1979 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, AND COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittees met jointly at 9 :20 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patricia Schroeder (chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service) presiding. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We will call the meeting to order this morning. I would like to defer to the gentleman from Florida to introduce his distinguished colleagues. Mr. FASCELL. Madam Chairperson, this is a rare occasion for me. I think the first time I did this was in 1953, and my distinguished col- league had already 'had more years of outstanding service to the U.S. Senate than I have had probably all my life. He is an unusual person, to say the least, but one thing that always sticks in my memory about Senator Claude Pepper is that he has always been far out in front of everybody else, certainly in the Congress of the United States in mat- ters that affect human beings and social reforms which are now part of our everyday life. I just hope that I can match his creativity and enthu- siasm. I am very happy to welcome a very distinguished colleague from Florida as our first witness this morning, Hon. Claude Pepper. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We welcome you, too. STATEMENT OF ZION. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. PEPPER. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman. First, let me thank my distinguished and longtime friend and col- league for his very kind words. You know, when you get up in years a little bit, you have to run mighty fast to keep from falling down. [General laughter.] I tell him that I have found life is like riding a bicycle-.you do not fall off unless you quit going forward. So, I try to do what I can to keep in motion, and I am very grateful to the two subcommittees for holding these hearings this morning, and I thank you very much for the privilege of being here with you. (195) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I will make a very brief statement and then I have, if they are both here, two retired Foreign Services officers who would like to make very brief statements, if they may. You can be assured that I will not be here too long, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman, because I have to be in a Rules Committee meeting at 9:45, but I am very grateful to both of your distinguished subcommittees for having this hearing this morning. I am here to urge you to include our legislation, H.R. 2694, to eliminate mandatory retirement of Foreign Service officers as part of any broader Foreign Service reform bill that you send to the floor. As many of the Members will recall, last year, Congress took a great step in recognizing both the rights and abilities of the elderly by enacting H.R. 5383, my bill to abolish mandatory retirement for most Federal workers. I will say to my distinguished colleague from Florida, I have just returned from addressing the silver-haired legis- lature in Florida, where 133 men and women from all over Florida were elected. by 95,000 participating voters. All of the elected people were over 60 years of age, and all who participated in the election were over 60 years of age, it would have been an inspiration to you to have seen the vitality and the dynamism in that group of people. By the way, they passed the legislature last year. This is the second session. They passed 15 bills, 6 of which were approved by the regu- lar Florida Legislature. That shows they have some knowledge of what they do. The overwhelming votes of 359 to 4 in the House, and 88 to 7 in the Senate constituted a decisive declaration that the Federal Govern- ment should not continue to sanction or practice age discrimination against its employees. The Government should, instead, become a model employer, proudly casting a guiding light for all employers to follow into a new era in which individual competence, not age, deter- mines how long a person is allowed to work. Madam Chairwoman and, Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all saw in the paper the other day a very graphic, deplorable fact. A little girl, 5 years old, was dying from old age. She had all the symptoms of old age at 5, cataracts, her skin took on a different complexion and charac- ter and all that sort of thing, because the aging mechanism in the body of that child had somehow become accelerated. Somehow it had gotten out of its regular order. That simply shows that all people do not age to the same degree or are of the same opinion. Because your.committees were planning to conduct this more com- prehensive review of the Foreign Service system in 1979, H.R. 5383 did not include the Service. Tragically, every dray that this exemption continues, qualified Foreign Service officers who reach the magic age of 60 are rewarded for their long service by being thrown out of their jobs. By the way, Madame Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman, this month our House Committee on Aviation, the subcommittee chaired by Mr. Glen Anderson of California, is going to hold hearings on moderating and modifying the rule issued by General Cassado of NCAA, the Administrator, several years ago, mandatorily retiring all pilots at 60 years of age. In other words, that policy is going to be reviewed, even with commercial airline pilots, by a committee of our House. So, this shows that more and more, our Congress is recognizing that qualification and competence is the criterion of employment and that Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 it is wrong to take an arbitrary age anywhere in the 60's as a criterion of one's mandatory retirement. The main focus of the Foreign Service Act you are now considering is to make greater use of performance on the job. For example, pro- motions would be based on merit, and continued service would be de- pendent on meeting a quality standard in carrying out duties. I fully support these efforts to reward meritorious service and weed out those who are inadequate employees but it would be totally inconsistent to apply criteria of merit to Foreign Service officers who are under age 60 while maintaining the arbitrary age 60 rule for mandatory retire- ment. If competence and skill are important and can be taken into account with employees who are 30, 40, and 59, how can they be dis- regarded the moment a Foreign Service officer reaches age 60? Let me give you one instance that occurred in a recent hearing of our Aging Committee on this pilot matter. A pilot for United Airlines was flying. a big commercial plane from Los Angeles to Honolulu. He got 1 hour out of Los Angeles and he lost an engine. He tried to put it back in operation. He failed. He lost a second engine. He franti- cally tried to restore the operation of that. He lost a third engine, and he could not restore that, but that pilot was so competent and capable and courageous that he turned that plane around, flew it back to its origin, landed it without any damage to the plane or any injury to the passengers. He received several award's and medals and eulogies, and 2 months later was mandatorily retired as incompetent any longer to fly an airplane. That just shows the inconsistency of that arbitrary rule. De- fendants of the age 60 rule have cited hazardous living conditions abroad to justify the practice of mandatory retirement based on age. Obviously, as recent terrorist incidents point out, conditions abroad are not always ideal, but it is ludicrous to believe that a person loses his or her ability to cope with these stresses and strains or to function competently because of these conditions the instant they turn 60. What makes this even more intolerable is that other employees of our Government who work abroad are not subject to this age discrimi- nation. Right now, this Nation is represented by a 76-year-old Ambas- sador, Mike Mansfield, in Japan, and 68-year-old Leonard Woodcock is our Ambassador to China. There are also many civil service employees in agencies like the Agriculture Department or the General Accounting Office who work outside the United States but are not subject to mandatory retirement because they are not in the Foreign Service. It is absurd that two em- ployees-one in the civil service and one in the Foreign Service-could work next to each other overseas, perform comparable jobs, and live under similar conditions until they are 60, when the Foreign Service employee is automatically fired and his civil service counterpart con- tinues to serve as long as he can perform his job. The State Department has testified regarding their concern for an adequate attrition rate in the senior ranks of the Foreign Service to '`make room" for the advancement of talented younger persons. We are all aware of the problems that could be created in an agency in which job advancement is limited. However, mandatory retirement based solely on age is not an acceptable method of achieving this. Ageism is as odious as racism or sexism, and nobody is entitled to move into a qualified worker's job just because they are younger. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 198 It is time to stop sacrificing older workers on the altar of increased attrition and career advancement for the young. It is time to firmly reject the outdated stereotypes that form the basis for mandatory retirement. If there ever was a rational basis for forcing Foreign Serv- ice retirement at age 60, it no longer exists. Therefore, I strongly and most respectfully urge you to take this into account and rid the For- eign Service of the last vestiges of age discrimination. I am sorry the other witness was not able to be here, but I would like to ask if you would be kind enough to hear Hon. Joe Glazer, who is a distinguished Foreign Service employee and would like to tell of his own experiences in respect to this matter under consideration. Thank you so much. [Mr. Pepper's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased to testify before these two distinguished subcommittees as you consider legislation to completely restructure the foreign service system. I am here today to urge you. to include our legislation, H.R. 2694, to eliminate mandatory retirement of foreign service officers as part of any broader foreign service reform bill you send on to the floor. As many of the Members will recall, last year Congress took a great step in recognizing both the rights and abilities of the elderly by enacting H.R. 5383, my bill to abolish mandatory retirement for most Federal workers. The over- whelming votes of 359 to 4 in the House and 88 to 7 in the Senate constituted a decisive declaration that the Federal Government should not continue to sanc- tion or practice age discrimination against its employees. The Government should instead become a model employer, proudly casting a guiding light for all em- ployers to follow into a new era in which individual competence, not age, deter- mines how long a person is allowed to work. Because your committees were planning to conduct this more comprehensive review of the foreign service system in 1979, H.R. 5383 did not include the service. Tragically, every day that this exemption continues, qualified Foreign Service officers who reach the magic age of 60 are rewarded for their long service by being thrown out of their jobs. The main focus of the Foreign Service Act you are now considering is to make greater use of performance on the job. For example, promotions would be based on merit and continued service would be dependent on meeting a quality standard in carrying out duties. I fully support these efforts to reward meritorious service and weed out those who are inadequate employees but it would be totally inconsistent to apply criteria of merit to Foreign Service offi- cers who are under age 60 while maintaining the arbitrary age 60 rule for mandatory retirement. If competence and skill are important and can be taken into account with employees who are 30, 40, and 59, how can they be disregarded the moment a Foreign Service officer reaches age 60. Conditions abroad are not always ideal but it is ludicrous to believe that a person loses his or her ability to cope with these stresses and strains or to function competently because of these conditions the instant they turn 60. What makes this even more intolerable is that other employees of our govern- ment who work abroad are not subject to this age discrimination. Right now this Nation is represented by a 76-year-old Ambassador, Mike Mansfield in Japan, and 68-year-old Leonard Woodcock is our Ambassador to China. There are also many civil service employees in .agencies like the Agriculture Department or the General Accounting Office who work outside the United States but are not subject to mandatory retirement because they are not in the Foreign Service. It is absurd that two employees-one in the civil service and one in the Foreign Service-could work next to each other overseas, per- form comparable jobs, and live under similar conditions until they are 60 when the Foreign Service employee is automatically fired and his civil service coun- terpart continues to serve as long as he can perform the job. The State Department has testified of their concern for an adequate attrition rate in the senior ranks of the Foreign Service to "make room" for the advance- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 ment of talented younger persons. We are all aware of the problems that could be created in an agency in which job advancement is limited. However, manda- tory retirement based solely on age is not an acceptable method of achieving this. Ageism is as odious as racism or sexism, and nobody is entitled to move into a qualified worker's job just because they are younger. It is time to stop sacrificing older workers on the altar of increased attrition and career advancement for the young. It is time to firmly reject the outdated stereotypes that form the basis for mandatory retirement. If there ever was a rational basis for forcing Foreign Service retirement at age 60, it no longer exists. Therefore and most respectfully, I strongly urge you to take this into account and to rid the Foreign Service system of the last vestiges of age discrimination. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We will be delighted to welcome him. Mr. GLAZER. If I could just take a few minutes Mrs. SCHROEDER. If you could move the microphone over, it would help. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GLAZER, INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AGENCY Mr. GLAZER. I will just take a few minutes, since I know everyone has to run to other hearings. I thank Congressman Pepper, because as a young man, I heard him talk eloquently on the Senate floor. As he grows older, like good violins and good wine, Congressman, you get better with age. Mr. PEPPER. Thank you. Mr. GLAZER. I would just like to speak very briefly as a Foreign Service officer and one who is over 60 who managed to get here by a combination of car and subway without too much difficulty. Mr. PEPPER. Would you excuse me, Madame Chairwoman? I have to run to a Rules Committee meeting. Mr. GLAZER. I would like to take a few minutes to tell you a story of one or two people who have been affected by this rule. Once a great architect said that God is in the details, and instead of giving you a lot of numbers and speaking generally, I would just like to tell you the story of one man who was affected by this 60-year ruling and see if this makes sense in 1979. Just the other day when they asked me did I know some people affected by this rule of 60, I talked to a few people who had been- I don't want to say executed, but eliminated from the Foreign Service immediately, and others who had been forced to convert back to a general service status which permitted them to work to 70 and if they like, beyond, and one of the administrators in the office came up to me and said, 2 days before he reached 60, he was called in and told, you are finished; you have to retire. However, since he had been previously a general service employee, magically, he could convert. The only problem was, he would have to drop $5,000 or $6,000 in salary. I said, did you do a different job? No, the same job, exactly the same job. He had to take the $5,000 or $6,000 out, because he hit the magic age of 60. I said, maybe they didn't like you because you were not so good. He said, here are my ratings. You know, the Foreign Service and the general services every year rate the employees. They decide if you are good, superior, no good, should we promote you, are you eligible for an award, are you doing any useful service for your Government, at cetera. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I will read you one or two lines from this gentleman's ratings : "Superior honor award. Sustained outstanding leadership and per- formance as the agency's administrative services officer. Another agency honor award. Qualified for a position at the GS-16 level." This is a man who had been a GS-15 for 20 years. At the urging of the agency, he became a Foreign Service officer, just a change in classification. When he reached 60, they said Foreign Service officers are no good any more, you go out. However, since he had been a GS-15, you can convert. However, now the job you are on is only a GS-14, and you have to take a $5,000 cut. Here is another rating. Isn't this the kind of person that is needed in the Government? One of the stalwarts in the Office of Administration, a thoroughly dedicated, competent, intelligent government executive who can handle almost any senior administrative job in Washington. We hope he continues to be happy in his present job, since we need him there. Several years ago, this gentleman had been offered a GS-16 in one of the other agencies. He checked with his people, and they said, no, you stay here. One of these days you will be a 16, because you are as good as any 16. Then he changed to Foreign Service officer. He hit 60. Bam ! He had to take a GS-14 if he didn't want to retire. He handled many complicated reorganization plans. Now we talk about reorganization, and one of the reorganizations occurred when the International Communication Agency was founded. It was a merger of the old USIA with part of the State Department. Now, many of you Congressmen know that many times reorganization becomes disorganization, and when an agenecy is reorganized, it is sometimes worse than it had been before. This gentleman was in charge of reorganizing 500 people, 50 differ- ent job classifications, getting furniture, space, telephones, and so on and so forth. All the ratings say he did a masterful job. Then his life changed because he hit the magic number-60. Well, we could go on all the way like this. This gentleman used to have low blood pressure. He has got high blood pressure. He can't sleep nights. He has got two kids in college. He is trying to figure out what he is going to do. I am going to close now. Most important of all, this gentleman says, look, I know there are guys in the Government who are lazy on the job; they goof off; they should have been fired when they were 35. Perhaps they never should have been hired ; they should have been fired at 50 or 55. But this is my record, he says. I am a dedicated civil servant. When I got out of Harvard, he says, I wanted to work for the Government in public service. Two days before I am 60, I get thrown out. It just so happens he was able to transfer. But others did not have that possibil- ity. He says, is this right? Is this just? And he appealed to the direc- tor, and he was told they will take a look at it. But they don't want to make any exceptions. They don't want to open the door to the old, doddering men of 60 who have just done tremendous jobs for the agencies, similar to the pilot that Congressman Pepper mentioned. I have just gone into one case, but I could name many others, others who were actually thrown out or eliminated. The other fellow who was supposed to testify here was retired at 60 and is looking for a job. Maybe he had an appointment and could not come here. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 My boss, a very, very vigorous man who has served in Australia and Germany and Japan will be out on his heels in 2 or 3 months looking for a job or trying to figure out how to work it out to live on his pension. It just does not make any sense at all. I was a Foreign Service officer, and I will close with these few lines. I am sitting at a desk doing a job as a Foreign Service officer, grade 3, because I had come in laterally. I had a choice of converting. I converted to a GS, and they said, well, the job that you are on is a GS-13, that means a $6,000 cut. The same title, the same job, the same office, the same boss, the same secretary, the same title. The guys asked me, how is your new job going? I said, the only thing new about it is the fact that I hit 60 and 1 got a $6,000 cut. They said, well, that is crazy. It is crazy, but that is the law unless Congress changes it. Thank you very much. Mr. FASCELL. It is time to change at least that part, Mr. Glazer. Let's get something on the record before you leave. I want to thank you for showing up with Congressman Claude Pepper. How long were you in Government? Mr. GLAZER. Twenty years. I want to make it clear I am still with the Government. I had a choice of retiring but decided to stay on for several years, even though it meant a pay cut. Mr. FASCELL. Where are you now? Mr. GLAZER. I am with the old U.S. Information Agency, now the International Communication Agency, and I am known as a program development officer in the Division of Social and Political Processes. What that means is, we send people like Congressmen and profes- sors overseas, to lecture on the United States, to help people under- stand our country a little better. Mr. FASCELL. With that title, I would be suspicious. [General laughter.] How long have you been over there? Mr. GLAZER. In that job? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Mr. GLAZER. In that particular job, I have been there 4 or 5 years. Before that, I had other jobs. Mr. FASCELL. How did you transfer over there? There wasn't any problem? Mr. GLAZER. I was about 58 Mr. FASCELL. Age is no problem over in that agency? Mr. GLAZER. None at all. If you are a Foreign Service officer and happen to be there, you get out. If the guy next to you is a general service officer doing the same job in that particular agency, he can stay on, in many jobs. Mr. FASCELL. Under the present law, are you a Foreign Service officer or did you convert? Obviously the age requirement does not apply to you. Mr. GLAZER. I was forced to convert if I wanted to stay on the job. I could have retired at 60. But my pension would have been about 30 percent of my current salary, so I decided to stay on. Mr. FASCELL. I see. Have you gone up in grade so as to catch up with your salary? Mr. GLAZER. No. Mr. FASCELL. What is the largest number of people you ever had under your supervision? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. GLAZER. Well, I don't have a large number of people under my supervision. Mr. FASCELL. One, two, three? Mr. GLAZER. Well, let's see. Three. That is all. Mr. FASCELL. I will ask it a different way then. Did you ever fire any- body in your entire Federal service? Mr. GLAZER. There was one secretary who was quite incompetent and we had to recommend that she be fired. Mr. FASCELL. Did you have any difficulty? Were there any appeals or court suits? Mr. GLAZER. Oh, yes, it was appealed. Mr. FASCELL. How long did it take you to fire the secretary? M. GLAZER. It took several years. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Leach. Mr. LEACH. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Derwinski. Mr. DERWINSKI. No questions. Mr. FASCELL. Are you guys all right? [General laughter.] Mr. BUCHANAN. I have nothing. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Glazer. I suppose the record would be replete with many horror stories if you took it on a case-by-case basis, but we appreciate your vivid descrip- tions. We are seeking to eliminate inequities and, certainly, the one that has been raised by Senator Pepper is one that we will have to consider very carefully. Thank you very much. Mr. GLAZER. I just wanted to point out that there are many inequities. Thank you very much. Mrs. SCHROEDER. The next witness this morning is Alan Campbell- we are delighted to have you with us this morning-the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. I welcome you, and I am delighted to have you with us. We are looking forward to your helping us with this bill. STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT . Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Chairman, and members of the two subcommittees. I am pleased to have this opportunity. Mr. FASCELL. Could you please pull that mike up? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Thank you. I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Foreign Service Act of 1979. The Office of Personnel Management's interest and activities in relation to the Foreign Service personnel system have been historically very broad. Through Executive Order 11434, we have significant responsibilities for advising the Secretary of State and the Director of ICA. In addition, we are represented on the Board of Foreign Service and the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service. These contacts have meant that the staff of the Civil Service Commission participated Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 in the earliest formulative stages of the plan to reorganize the Depart- ment's personnel system, and 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 step forward for the Service. The Foreign Service Act of 1979 would, in many respects, parallel the Civil Service Reform Act. Certainly, 'the impact on the Service will be comparable to the impact which the Civil Service Reform Act is having and will have on the civil service.. I know that you have been introduced to this bill by Secretary Vance and others who have preceded me. Rather than run the gamut of this wide-ranging piece of reform legislation, I will concentrate on those things which we are particularly pleased to see in this proposal or about which we have some questions. 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 employees whose duties do not include overseas service and those who do, will be significant. The Foreign Service personnel system is designed to give flexibilities and benefits to a worldwide service requiring mobility and hardship 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 which did not carry the same requirements produced a great deal of difficulty and inequities. The proposed legislation requires conver- sion 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. We believe an addition should be made to section 2104(b) to clarify that the retention of coverage under the Foreign Service retirement sys- tem shall not extend to employees after transfer to another agency. We recognized 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 non-foreign affairs agencies while staying in the Foreign Service retirement system. The Foreign Service was specifically excluded from the Senior Executive Service in the Civil Service Reform Act. We warmly en- dorse the Department's proposal to establish a Senior Foreign Serv- ice, which has many features that parallel those of the Senior Ex- ecutive Service. We particularly note that the Senior Foreign Serv- ice 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, as the members of this subcommittee know, became operational on July 13. We see the two systems as comple- mentary, however. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 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 af- fairs agencies. We have noted differences in the approaches between agencies which are both justified and unjustified. We, therefore, view it as a major goal to bring the personnel policies of the various For- eign Service agencies into closer conformity so that neither manage- ment nor the members of the Service will be disadvantaged by the existence of unwarranted differences. Bringing compatibility to the personnel systems of the three for- eign affairs agencies is one of the most important advisory roles of the Board of the Foreign Service which will be established in statute with OPM representation under section 206 of the proposed bill. The Board of Foreign Service has worked toward this end on many oc- casions in the past. The Board allows executive level management to influence personnel policy and, thus, is right in step with the objec- tives of civil service reform. Having touched these high points, I should note that OPM has had a concern related to the inclusion of supervisors in the bargain- ing unit. Title X differs from title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act which states that a unit does not appropriately include-except as provided under section 7135(a) (2) -any management official or supervisor. We have generally thought it inappropriate to have any managers or supervisors within the bargaining unit. I recognize, how- ever, that there are historical differences in the Foreign Service situation which the Congress may wish to take into account. I simply would not want action in this field to be regarded as indicative of the Congress views on other Federal personnel systems. Another problem which we continue to have with the proposal relates to the employment of family members abroad. The authority of the Secretary, in section 333(c), to "prescribe regulations for the guidance of all agencies regarding the employment at posts abroad 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. 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 lan- guage does not make clear that the regulations are "advisory," nor does it recognize the legitimate role of the Office of Personnel Manage- ment in regulating employment outside of the Foreign Service. 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 endorse 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 members of 'one agency over those of others. Despite the questions I have raised, this legislation has my positive support. I think it will contribute materially to the conduct of foreign affairs while affording proper consideration to the needs of employees. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 This concludes my prepared statement, Madam Chairwoman. I shall be glad to try to answer any questions of the committee members. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very, very much. Again, we appreciate having you here and helping us with this incredible task that we have undertaken. It seems like we have really gotten into personnel maybe more than we ever thought we would. I have a lot of questions, and I suppose one of the things that we should start with is : Why isn't there a need for a separate Foreign Service? Just a very basic question. Mr. CAMPBELL. I have become convinced after spending a great deal of time on this matter that the conditions of employment in terms of requirements placed on that service does justify a separate Foreign Service. On the other hand, we obviously are pleased that those people who do not have those obligations of overseas assignments and lack of choice in terms of where assigned will be now removed from the Foreign Service, and there will be a two-part personnel system in our foreign affairs agencies. It seems to me that that is the important contribution which this legislation will make, after having been down the road for some years, as you know, attempting to create one unified service for all people who work for a foreign affairs agency. My experience has demonstrated, as well as some of the testimony which preceded me, the inadequacies of that kind of effort. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Would you say the concepts like ranking a person or selection out are equally applicable to Foreign Service and to do- mestic service? Mr. CAMPBELL. I think the applicability of those special provisions apply with special force to the Foreign Service, because of the nature of their assignments. I would argue that in the case of the top levels of the senior executive service, that some of those provisions are equally applicable there, that is, rank-in-person and some of the other provi- sions, but basically it is the difference in the kind of service demands that are placed upon the personnel, which I believe justifies the sepa- rate service as well as the historical pattern. One cannot ignore what has been the case in the past. Mrs. SCHROEDER. On page 2 of your statement, you say that con- verted FAS employees should use their right to Foreign Service re- tirement. Could you explain that? Mr. CAMPBELL. We are talking here about people who are converted to the general schedule, and we are saying that if they stay with our foreign affairs agencies, that their Foreign Service retirement cover- age should continue because those were the conditions under which they were hired. If, on the other diand, they move to a non-foreign affairs agency, it seems to us that they should then convert, which they easily can, to tho regular civil service retirement system. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I guess the other question is, can you justify pre- serving earlier retirement rights for people who never served over- seas and converted to FAS? Mr. CAMPBELL. I think it can be justified only in terms of the sense of a contractual relationship in that they are now a part of that sys- tem, anticipated being in it all their lives, and to change that, we believe, would be inequitable. Beyond that, there is no justification. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. Last year we were going through all the Civil Service Reform Act legislation. You had said that there had been orfly about 226 Federal employees that were fired on performance grounds in the previous 12 months. That was one of the reasons for civil service reform. It would allow managers more flexibility to fire incompetent employees. I am wondering if you have been able to compare that at all with the selection out procedure for Foreign Service and find out whether it worked significantly better than the adverse action that we have in civil service. Mr. CAMPBELL. I would not be able to provide you numbers in my response to your question. We would be glad to provide that informa- tion for the record. I would say, though, that the selection out provi- sion is not directly related to inadequacies of performance in the way that adverse actions are in the general schedule. I would simply sug- gest there are different standards involved. I would anticipate that the selection out system produced propor- tionately more early retirements than is true of adverse action in the general schedule, but that is without having numbers in front of me. Mrs. SCHROEDER. If we could have those numbers for the record, I think that might be helpful as we look at this. Mr. CAMPBELL. Surely. [The information referred to follows:] While 226 separations for inefficiency represents approximately one-ten-hun- dredth of a percent of nonprobationary competitive service positions or about 1 in every 10,000, the average rate of selection out for Foreign Service officers in the Department of State has averaged, over the 10-year period of 1969 to 1978, 1 out of every 96 subject to selection out or approximately 1 percent. The raw figures show that an average of 35 Foreign Service officers have been selected out over the 10-year period of an average 3.345 who were subject to selection out. During that period 71 percent of the selection outs were under the time-in-class provision while 29 percent were selected out for substandard performance. Mrs. SCHROEDER. If I could also ask you if OPM has made any efforts to provide employment for spouses of Foreign Service officers when they return and are on temporary assignment in Washington. Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not know of any special programs we have for doing that. Obviously, the information would be provided through the general means by which one acquires Federal employment. Beyond that, I am not aware that we have made any special efforts. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think I would like to plead with you to try and make some special efforts. I know that you have said there is a prob- lem with section 333 (c) in dealing with the family members in foreign posts. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Our only concern here is if the State Depart- ment provides training-which we strongly urge them to do and which they are doing-so that it would increase the possibility of spouses finding employment overseas, that such training programs be avail- able to families of employees working for other agencies. We have discussed that, in fact, just very recently, and the State Department agrees with us that that is appropriate ?and will attempt to do so. [The following information was subsequently provided:] Our concern here is that many employees of the Defense Department, for example, are serving 'overseas in non-foreign affairs agencies. We believe that it is inappropriate that the 'State Department 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 had and should continue to have. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. SCHROEDER. I sincerely hope we can implore you to also look at helping the spouses who are here in Washington on rotation. Mr. CAMPBELL. I certainly hear you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Mr. Derwinski, do you have any questions? Mr. DERWINsKI. Could you point out for us what provisions in the bill before us could be attributed to your early consultation and what specific input in the bill is therefore related to civil service reform? Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not certain whether our impact was correct on these matters I am going to mention or incorrect just because they were a part of the Civil Service Reform Act, but there is no question that the Senior Foreign Service is molded after the Senior Executive Service, as are the special benefits in terms of bonuses and the like. In addition to that, the prohibited personnel practices are taken almost directly from the Civil Service Reform Act, and thereby those prohibited practices are the same throughout the two personnel sys- tems. Although there are some distinctions in the labor relations sys- tem, the provisions in the Foreign Service Act of 1979 parallel in many respects title VII, the difference there being primarily the inclusion of some managers and supervisors on the Foreign Service side which are excluded as far as the Civil Service Reform Act is concerned. The merit pay provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act for 13's through 15's was, after much consideration, not followed in the For- eign Service Act, although a substitute of a greater emphasis on per- formance for in-grade step increases is a part of the legislation, and to that extent is followed. I must say that I am very pleased with the amount of parallel that there is between the two pieces of legislation. I am hopeful that as a result of the careful consideration given by the people in the State Department in seeing the merit of what the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee and others did in the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act your committees will give favorable consideration to this legislative proposal. Mr. DERwiNsKI. What is your basic view on the mandatory retire- ment provision for Foreign Service? Mr. CAMPBELL. I believe a strong case can be made for the manda- tory retirement for those who are genuinely in the Foreign Service. That is that they respond to all of the demands of that service, and for that reason I think it is particularly useful that we clearly dis- tinguish those jobs in the State Department which do not have those characteristics. I would point out that the specific example given by Mr. Glazer of the fact that he had to move from a Foreign Service rank to a GS position that was greatly lower, is an example of the difficulty of having the two systems operate side by side. The fact is that with rank- in-person there is a great deal of freedom of jobs to which you can assign a person. When it became necessary to move to the general schedule, then the actual position classification becomes the important consideration, and that was clearly a] ob ' as the situation was described, meriting a grade 13. Since the Foreign Service system is a rank-in-per- son system, assigning him to that job was completely appropriate, but it does show the difficulties in operating two systems when there is not a clear distinction as to the obligations of the two systems. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I would point out-and the State Department has this data more at their fingertips than I do-that there are serious problems, as people grow older, in their ability to accept assignments as required by the Foreign Service. As you look at the percentages as you go up the scale to age 50, you see that 50 percent, due to health conditions, family conditions, and the like, became difficult to assign abroad. So it may be that the age 60 cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but I would suggest that empirical evidence points in the direction that it is a pretty good guide. Mr. DERWINSKi. On that specific point, there isn't anything scien- tific about it, about the age 60 cutoff. They just may as well have been 59 or 61. Mr. CAMPBELL. I agree with that. The fact is that all one has to rely on is the empirical experience of those who operate within the system. I would further make a point that the retirement system for Foreign Service officers is somewhat more generous than the general civil service retirement system. Mr. DERWINSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much, Madame Chairperson. You express a concern, Mr. Campbell, about section 333(c), which is language that the subcommittee wrote. I can assure you that it was our intention that it be strictly advisory and not preempt the re- sponsibilities of OPM in any way. We will either make that clear by changing the language or whatever it takes to satisfy that viewpoint of yours. Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate it very much. Mr. FASCELL. We appreciate your calling it to our attention. Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. To get away from the purely mathematical limita- tion on employment, even though empirical evidence would suggest that it might be useful to do it that way, it seems that we ought to consider other criteria which are more acceptable. I think that is the point that has been made by the chairman of the Select Committee on Aging and others. For example, I am not sure anybody can really object to a health requirement in those positions which clearly call for a health check. How about other functional provisions? You mentioned, for ex- ample, the requirement of the Foreign Service officer to take posts overseas. Now, if the individual elects not to take such a post, re- gardless of age, it seems that you could apply the same criteria and solve that problem. Mr. CAMPBELL. It is certainly possible that one could attempt to define, and I would urge that it be done with great care, the kinds of conditions which would entitle a person to remain or which would require a person to retire. I think that the experience with the 60-year mandatory retirement with the Secretary of State being able to make exceptions to it is in some way equivalent to that. The real question is, which side do you want to put the burden of proof on? Here I would simply suggest that I at least, and I am sure the committee would, too, listen very carefully to the experience of the State Department in this regard. They are closer to it than I am and feel very strongly about the need for this kind of provision. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Leach. Mr. LEACH. Mr. Campbell, are you familiar with the Hay Associ- ates study? Mr. CAMPBELL. I have not read the study. My staff has pointed out that that study has been done. There is an.OMB, OPM, State, ICA, and AID task force currently examining the findings. There are some problems with it in relationship to the number of positions cov- ered and the range of positions covered, as I understand it. It will, however, along with some further studies, be given careful considera- tion by both OMB and OPM. Mr. LEACH. Are you prepared to support it? Mr. CAMPBELL. Not until I know a great deal more about it than I do now and we have had an opportunity to examine it. On the basis of that review and other data, we will be ready, in due time to make an appropriate recommendation in the pay area for the Foreign Service. Mr. LEACH. I have often been concerned that it is very difficult sometimes to relate Government jobs with the private sector, but cer- tainly there are many problems in comparing Foreign Service jobs with the private sector. That is what the Hay Associates study does. But it does seem to me to be very simple to relate Foreign Service pay to civil service pay, and, thereby, to relate comparable people with comparable people. In that sense it thus strikes me that a funda- mental principle that ought to be carried out is the equivalency of Foreign Service pay to civil service pay. Does that strike you as reasonable? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I will accept that. Mr. LEACH. In that regard, I hope you will look carefully at this issue. I do not know if it is by accident or for whatever reason, but the Hay Associates study relating to the private sector arrives at about the same number of percentage points in relationship to the Foreign Service system as with the civil service system. Particularly in the Foreign Service system you have smaller step increases in compari- son to the civil service. You also have slower promotions, although that may or may not continue if there is mandatory retirement. Let me ask you, you do support mandatory retirement for the Foreign Service? Mr. CAMPBELL. I do support mandatory retirement for the Foreign Service. Mr. LEACH. One of the interesting features in comparing the SFS and the SES is that in the proposed SFS there is a mandatory feature whereby the Foreign Service officer must propose himself for selec- tion, at which point a time period is triggered in which he must then retire or be promoted. Mr. CAMPBELL. Right. Mr. LEACH. Do you support the notion of having a Foreign Service officer personally make this decision to propose himself, and second, is there an analogy to the SES in that regard? Mr. CAMPBELL. Answering the second part of the question first, there is no question that candidates for the Senior Executive Service must make a decision to become a candidate. Now, you do not have Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 any of the triggering mechanisms and so forth after that fact, but the choice is in the hands of the person who is seeking that. Mr. LEACH. The triggering mechanism? Mr. CAMPBELL. We do not have a triggering mechanism, and that triggering mechanism 'in the Foreign Service is a product of the gen- eral Foreign Service System, which is an up-or-out system, and I would say that as long as you have that as part of the system, that it should apply to promotion or the Senior Foreign Service in the same way that it applies to other promotions within that Service. Mr. LEACH. I understand that, but I am not sure your answer is specific. One of the hardships of the proposal, at least in the psycho- logical sense, is that the person has to choose to be considered for promotion; at that point the question of time comes into effect. I am yet to be persuaded that there is any reason for that. I do not see why any or all people who have reached a certain level ought not to be eligible for promotion. Each officer must make that decision, but why do you need the triggering mechanism at the point that they make that decision? Mr. CAMPBELL. I realize full well your expertise about the Foreign Service, and I must admit that I have not thought carefully about that question. I suggest when a person reaches that stage in their career where they become eligible, it should be automatic. Mr. LEACH. Eligibility should become automatic without a penalty. That means there should be a time-in-class for that person if they do not achieve the SES or SFS. I am not sure why the time-in-class should be triggered by the personal decision to want to be considered for promotion. Mr. CAMPBELL. I would suppose that is in a sense seen as favoring the Foreign Service officer, because they have the choice of not com- peting for the Senior Foreign Service, and as such protect themselves from whatever that may involve. I would suggest that that is done as a way of providing an additional protection against what will be a highly competitive group for the Senior Foreign Service. Whether that is an appropriate protection I will leave to you to argue with the Secretary of State. Mr. LEACH. May I ask-and you do make recommendations to the Department of State-were there any recommendations of yours which were not accepted? Mr. CAMPBELL. The only place where, after much consultation and discussion, we did not reach an absolute final agreement-although I became convinced that the special character of the system justified it-was in the inclusion of managers and supervisors in the bargain- ing unit. Mr. LEACH. Do you feel that an employee organization ought to be able to negotiate on such matters as time-in-class, the number of con- tract extensions for the senior ranks and related matters? Mr. CAMPBELL. I would hesitate to respond to those specific matters, because my general position is that there should not be the opportunity of negotiating over what I consider management decisions. I would think that, in relationship to some of the kinds of general questions that you have raised, that there may be appropriateness for some of them to be negotiated, but I would be very careful that in that process, the necessity for maintaining managers' flexibility not be undermined. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. LEACH. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Pashayan. Mr. PASHAYAN. Why are concepts such as a person being selected out for excess time-in-class and performance work uniquely applicable to the Foreign Service system and inapplicable to the domestic service system? Mr. CAMPBELL. I have been repeating a bit in response to Chair- woman Schroeder's question. The distinctions really relate to character of service, the fact that it does have special requirements, the overseas obligations, the fact of not being able to select posts, being assigned to posts; all of those, it seems to me, require the very special set of conditions relative to that kind of very special service. Mr. PASxAYAx. Let me ask one more question, and then I will be done. Apparently a number of elements of the Senior Foreign Service are different than the senior executive service, such as the absence of a parachute clause, the existence of a window for entry, and, I suppose, the decreased emphasis on managerial aspects of the Service. Do any of these differences portend of potential problems? Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not think so. They are differences which really are a product of the nature of the Foreign Service system. The lack of parachute rights relates to the up or out provisions of the Foreign Service. I think a parachute in that kind of system would be inappro- priate. In relationship to the other matters, they, too, are drawn from what are the characteristics of the total system, but I am more impressed with the similarities than I am with the differences, and there are aspects of those similarities which I think are going to make a very useful contribution to, for example, interchange between the domestic and Foreign Service sides which I believe will add important things to both sides of that equation. The use of bonuses for perform- ance is, I believe, important in the Foreign Service, where I think per- formance should be measured just as it is measured in other kinds of high-level jobs. So, my satisfaction grows out of the similarities, and I do not feel that the differences in any way undermine those similarities, and the value of those similarities. Mr. PASHAYAN. I guess I have attempted to ask yet one more question. Mr. CAMPBELL. All right. Mr. PASHAYAN. What is your opinion, subject to supervisor's opinion? Mr. CAMPBELL. As I have said, we had problems with that from the beginning. In consultations with the State Department, I became con- vinced that there are sufficient differences between the role of super- visors in the Foreign Service versus the general schedule side, and it one examines the history of it, it justifies that difference. Let me just add one point to the special characteristics in Foreign Service. As I understand it, many of the people who have supervisory, managerial responsibility in the Foreign Service do not have many of the kinds of decisionmaking powers that is true in the competitive service. They do not have many of the personnel powers that managers have on the civilian side in terms of hiring, firing, promoting, much of which is done centrally in the Foreign Service. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Those differences would justify a difference in treatment. I would like to repeat what I said in my testimony. I hope we do not take this as a model for any other Federal personnel systems in terms of the labor-management relations system. Mr. PASHAYAN. One more last question. This will be last of the last questions. In that we do not know yet how well performance pay worked in the SES, is it a good idea to place the thrust on the SFS? Mr. CAMPBELL. I am confident that the performance pay system for the senior executive service will work well. I am obviously encouraged as I know the committee people here from the Post Office and Civil Service Committee are, that over 95 percent of those eligible for the senior executive service have elected to join it, which is in very sharp contrast to what was predicted during part of the time we were debat- ing this issue. I must say that I foresee more problems with the merit pay part of our proposals for grades 13 through 15 than I see for the performance bonus system for the senior executive service., Mr. PASHAYAN. Thank you very much. Mrs. SCHROEDER. That leads me immediately into, then, are you dis- appointed there is no merit pay provision in this bill? Mr. CAMPBELL. As I said earlier in my testimony, we would like to see merit pay in that part of the Foreign Service system. However, we are satisfied with the intent for greater use of the within-grade step increases as a means of beginning what we hope is in the direction of using merit pay in that part of the Foreign Service system. I believe getting the experience that we are going to get on the merit pay side will be very useful to the State Department 2 or 3 years down, the road when they make a decision whether they are going to take that additional step. We are deep into establishing critical elements and performance.appraisal as a backup for merit pay, and we are impressed by the enormity of the task that we have .taken on. I hope that as we learn, our lessons can be applied if the State Department decides they wish to move in that direction. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So you hope they will become enlightened later on? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I just want to go a little further on this whole ques- tion of supervisors in the bargaining unit. I am not quite sure about it, and this is going to be a thing that will be very difficult for this com- mittee, because we have had testimony both ways. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am not sure whether I hear you saying that it is not your area. So, politically you would just as soon not get into it and defer by saying that, historically in the State Department it has been allowed, so leave it there, but do not make it a precedent. Or are you really saying it is a good idea in the State Department but for no other agency? Mr. CAMPBELL. I guess that I would argue that what I am saying is some place in the middle of that. There is a particular management characteristic in the Foreign Service; many supervisors do not have the full range of authority that supervisors and managers traditionally have in the rest of the Government service. On the basis of that dif- ference, I believe that the inclusion of supervisors in the bargaining unit does not raise the usual kinds of problems that it would in a Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 system where there was greater managerial authority, particularly in the making of personnel decisions, which after all is what labor relations is primarily about, especially when pay is the question. We are also mindful of the fact that some managers are excluded under the proposal based on their decisionmaking authority. So, I am comfortable that the system as outlined in the legislation is workable and appropriate. I just want to be very sure that the record shows that we have a very strong position that management and supervisory people in general should not be included within bargain- ing units. We do happen to have a couple of exceptions in the Civil Service Reform Act which we were not very happy about, either. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I realize that. As I say, we are just trying to con- struct the best of all possible worlds. I don't know if it would be a good idea to substitute the Civil Service Reform Act for the bill be- fore us. I can understand why you really hate to go one way or the other, but I think you have been helpful in trying to say where you were. Now, when the Secretary of State issues regulations for civil service employees, what kind are they going to be, and is that going to under- mine any of OPM's authority? Mr. CAMPBELL. No, I don't think so, if we are talking about the general schedule people. There will be an arrangement worked out whereby uniformity, where necessary, will be accomplished. I would, however, quickly make the further point that we are in the process, as you well know, of a substantial delegation of person- nel authority for decisionmaking to departments and agencies, and within that context the State Department's role in this regard is be- coming increasingly like what we hope will be characteristic of the total system. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So, you won't turn over the whole thing? Mr. CAMPBELL. No. Mrs. SCHROEDER. It would be very similar to other agencies. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much. There is a provision now pending in the conference on the economic assistance bill to provide for appointment of former Peace Corps staff to the competitive service without examination. Do you see any reason why that benefit would be in conflict with what we are trying to do in this bill? Mr. CAMPBELL. I am sorry. The first part is that there would be the opportunity for noncompetitive hiring. Mr. FASCELL. No, I am referring to noncompetitive appointment to the civil service for former Peace Corps staff, similar to procedures now in effect for volunteers. Mr. CAMPBELL. I am going to, if I may, respond to that question in writing, because it does have some serious implications, and I want to be certain that I check with the right people on it. I am concerned, I am always concerned about automatic conversion systems, and there- fore I would like the opportunity to check. Mr. FASCELL. I would appreciate it if you would check that. The staff can give you the exact language that is now in conference. Since Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 to act on that in the next day or two, we need to know we are going what relationship that provision has to this bill. Mr. CAMPBELL. We will get that to you just as soon as we can, and certainly before the conference committee takes final action. [The information referred to follows:] While various groups have been granted noncompetitive entry, there appears to be no compelling reason why this group should be accorded the privilege : 1. Together with Department of State, we reported against a similar provision to OMB last March. 2. The noncompetitive entry accorded to Peace Corps volunteers was a recogni- tion of their dedication and talents, the vigorous screening they underwent, and the difficult conditions overseas under which they worked at subsistence pay levels. It is somewhat analogous to preference-a means of readjustment, of easing their transition back into the regular world of work. Peace Corps staff, on the other hand, are salaried Federal employees and are not subject to the unique demands volunteers faced. 3. Employees serving under Foreign Service limited appointments in State, AID, and ICA do not have such a benefit. 4. Employees serving under time limited appointments in the competitive service do not have the right to move to other jobs. 5. Peace Corps staff may file along with the general public in any of our open competitive examinations for appointment consideration. 6. We could consider administratively granting to Peace Corps staff eligibility to be hired noncompetitively, provided their employment system is found to meet certain merit system principles. One condition would require an unlimited type of appointment, analogous to our career-conditional appointment. Mr. FASCELL. You are undertaking, as I understand it, a massive .review of the performance evaluation system. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. It seems to me that there will be great benefit in some kind of interdepartmental review, because State is in the process of reviewing its performance evaluation system, and it seems to me that State and OPM could benefit from the experience of the other. OPM has had tremendous experience, and if you bring new talent to bear on the subject, it would seem to be very useful at this point to have some kind of joint review without either one impinging on the other. Mr. CAMPBELL. There is no question that to some extent that has already started and will become even more intense after this legisla- lation is passed, and the Senior Foreign Service is put into effect. I know the State Department has a great interest in the performance evaluation system that we are establishing for the senior executive service. Mr. FASCELL. It seems to me with any Government personnel system, the biggest problem is, how do you get rid of the incompetent? The guts of that on this system seems to be a proper or realistic or truthful appraisal, depending on which word suits. I do not know that the military has a better system, either. I have looked at all those criteria and the selection from 1 to 10. I can imagine people checking off the boxes and running out of words in the thesaurus to describe in superior terms someone who is really incompetent. [General laughter.] Mr. FASCELL. The military used to have one. Maybe we ought to adopt it in the regulations. If an individual was a great piano player, that meant he was out. Maybe something like that would work. Thank you very much. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, sir. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Derwinski, do you have any further questions? Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Campbell was so persuasive, I am left without questions for him. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Leach. Mr. LEACH. Thank you for coming before us, sir. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Again, we appreciate all of the time that you have given us. Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you very much. [Additional questions submitted to Mr. Campbell for the record follow:] ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO MR. CAMPBELL AND RESPONSES THERETO Question. Should the Foreign Service be included under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) ? Why? Answer. I believe that the Foreign Service is appropriately excluded from Title VII. From inception of the program in 1962 until December 1971, the Foreign Service was included under the same executive orders that governed the Federal labor-management relations program. Experience proved, however, that the Foreign Service, because of its unique conditions of employment, should be under a separate executive order. Subsequently, in accordance with a Presi- dential directive, a draft executive order was prepared. It was concurred in by the Board of the Foreign Service, the Secretary of State, and the heads of the other foreign affairs agencies. The Foreign Service program has operated reasonably well as a separate entity ever since. Nothing in the Foreign Service program suggests the need to change this arrangement. For these reasons, there was no serious consideration given to including the Foreign Service under Title VII during deliberations on the CSRA. Question. What is OPM's view of the labor-management agreement Interna- tional Communication Agency (ICA) signed with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) in December 1977 which required that all conversions from Foreign Service domestic specialist to Civil Service status be voluntary? Answer. I am aware of the agreement ICA made with AFGE (Local 1812) and can fully appreciate the circumstances under which it was agreed to. There is no doubt in my mind that the agreement was made in good faith on the part of ICA management with a view toward maintaining among employees a sense of security for their jobs and benefits, as well as avoiding possible litigation. However, in view of estimates that it would take a minimum of 20 years to complete the conversion program if it were done voluntarily, I believe the more desirable course is to effect such conversion through legislation, that would in turn provide for such benefits as saved pay and grade. This would include in particular the Foreign Service retirement provisions, as well as protection against loss of pay. The procedures for accomplishing the conversions could, of course, be left to consultation between the foreign affairs agencies and its employee representatives. The statutory conversion solution is not only fair but, we believe, preferable to a status quo situation which allows employees to remain under a personnel system designed for overseas work when they are not, in fact, subject to such assignment. Question. Last year, you opposed efforts to exempt the Foreign Service from the Senior Executive Service (SES). Does the establishment of a separate Senior Foreign Service meet your objections? Answer. Our original proposal for SES would have included members of the Foreign Service. In considering the proposal, however, the Congress excluded Foreign Service personnel from SES under 5 U.S.C. 3132(a) (2) (i).We believe the Senior Foreign Service proposed by the Department of State is in keeping with the basic concepts of SES, such as accountability for performance, and we therefore support it. Question. A foreign affairs specialist employee converted to civil service will be protected in his or her Foreign Service retirement rights. If the bill passes as Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 216 now drafted, this employee could work well past age 60, while a Foreign Service employee would have to retire at age 60. My question is : Would this converted employee, working past age 60, be able to add 2 percent a year onto his or her amount of retirement? Answer. Section 2104(b) of the draft bill allows the former Foreign Service employee to elect to continue to participate in the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System. Section 836 of the draft bill requires retirement of participants in the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System when they reach 60. Our discussions with State Department and Office of Management and Budget staff have revealed no intention to except the "grandfathered" employees from the section 836 requirement for mandatory retirement if they have chosen to continue under Foreign Service retirement. Question. On page 2 of your statement, you mention that "retention of coverage under the Foreign Service Retirement System shall not extend to employees after transfer to another agency?" By transfer, do you refer to employees who leave the Foreign Service, not those who merely transfer on detail to another agency? Answer. My remarks concern only the employee who transfers out of the foreign affairs agency on a nontenporary basis. Question. One of the stated purposes of SES was to provide for trans- ferability of senior executives between Government agencies. Does not the establishment of a separate Senior Foreign Service undermine the goal of interchangeability? Answer. As indicated in the previous question, we initially proposed an SES that would have included Foreign Service personnel. One of the reasons for that proposal was the increased interchangeability such a unified system would pro- vide. Having two separate systems, however, does not necessarily preclude inter- changeability. The proposal for the Senior Foreign Service, for example, provides in section 521 for the temporary assignment of Senior Foreign Service members to SES positions for up to four years. We would be willing to consider the ap- propriateness of permanent interchangeability between the SES and the Senior Foreign Service. Question. What will be the relationship between OPM and the Board of the Foreign Service after this bill passes? Will OPM issue any regulations applicable to the Foreign Service? What kinds of regulations? Answer. The relationship of OPM to the Board of the Foreign Service is not expected to change under the bill. The Director of OPM is designated a member of the Board of Foreign Service under Executive Order 11264. We have developed significant expertise and familiarity with the Foreign Service system in order to add weight and significance to our representation. We hope that the Board of the Foreign Service will continue an active role in advising the Secretary on the operation of the Foreign Service system. Under the proposed Foreign Service Act, the Foreign Service will continue as a separate personnel system, exempt from most OPM regulations. Significant exemptions are in the areas of staffing, position classification, retirement, and adverse actions. The Foreign Service does come under OPM's regulations, how- ever, in the areas of health insurance, life insurance, conflict of interest, financial reporting requirements, and interchange of personnel with the competitive service. Question. On Page 3, you say one of the major goals of the legislation is to eliminate any unwarranted differences between the civil service and the For- eign Service. What kind of unwarranted differences are you thinking of? Answer. The testimony referred to greater coordination between those agencies operating under the Foreign Service personnel system rather than the elimination of differences with the civil service system. One of the differences recently iden- tified through the Board of the Foreign Service concerned the different proce- dures and time required to separate Foreign Service employees. The differences between the State Department's procedures and those of ICA were very signifi- cant. Through the Board's advice, the systems were brought closer together to avoid even the appearance that employees of one foreign affairs agency were advantaged over another. Question. Do you have any opinions about the Foreign Service grievance system? Answer. We believe that the current statutory Foreign Service grievance sys- tem is, at the same time, both simpler and more rigid than the grievance systems for the competitive service. The Foreign Service system is a single system and it applies the same procedures to most grievances. It gives good procedural protec- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 tions for the serious matters while affording the same procedures to minor complaints. Question. Is it good management practice to have civil service and Foreign Service employees working side-by-side, especially in a situation like the Agency for International Development (AID) where the Foreign Service officers are de- nied rotations home because of the fact that most Washington positions are encumbered by civil service employees? Is this a problem. Answer. It is not an ideal situation when employees performing identical jobs work side-by-side under quite different conditions of employment. However, it is not a significant problem when all understand that the b'oreign Service em- ployee's assignment is temporary. This legislation will help resolve the problem which exists because many Foreign Service employees are serving permanently in domestic positions. We do not feel that it is appropriate for the foreign affairs agencies to use the Foreign Service authorities to appoint employees who are not going to serve abroad. The increased costs (primarily for retirement bene- fits) of operating under the Foreign Service personnel system should be justified by the overseas duties performed by the employee. The situation at AID which prompts the apparent criticism in the question, is, we believe, being corrected by the identification of additional positions in Wash- ington to be filled by Foreign Service employees. When brought into proper bal- ance, the civil service positions in AID will not cause a hardship. Question. Has your testing research department ever looked at the Foreign Service exam? What did they find out? Answer. The written test used as part of the Foreign Service officer (FSO) exam is developed under a contract let by the Department of State to the Edu- cational Testing Service (ETS). Since ETS maintains security and control of the written test, OPM does not have copies. The content areas of the written test have changed over the years, but in general, the tests have included questions on : 1. General Background-understanding of institutions and concepts basic in the development of the U.S. and other countries. 2. English Expression-facility for clear and effective expression in written English. 3. Functional Field Test-basic information in administration, economics, politics, and cultural functions in a foreign environment. The Department of State, on occasion, has approached OPM with proposals to use the Federal Service Entrance Examination (FSEE) and the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE) in lieu of the contract devel- oped test. In response to these consolidation proposals, the Personnel Research and Development Center studied the relation between the FSO exam and the FSEE and PACE written tests. The analyses showed that there was a sizable overlap in the applicant population, and that while the two OPM tests were similar to the FSO, the FSO written tests did a better job of differentiating be- tween applicants with high levels of ability. The State Department did not carry through with the consolidation plans. The entrance level hiring program has recently been modified to include a one- way assessment center to replace the panel interview. The assessment center ac- tivity was developed by ETS. Because of our interest in assessment centers, an extensive research study has been initiated by OPM's Personnel Research and Development Center to study and evaluate the impact of this technique on the selection program. About 1,500 candidates are processed through this phase of the program annually. As part of our assessment center research, we plan to study the impact of the assessment center process on minorities and women. Question. The President has complained that there are too many U.S. Govern- ment employees abroad. Now, we have asked the Secretary of State, the heads of ICA and AID, and other witnesses which agencies are overstaffed abroad, and they all said that it was not them. Do you know what agencies are overstaffed "b road? Answer. We have no first-hand knowledge which would enlighten the Com- iittee. There is considerable work being done, however, under the direction of )MB to study the Executive Branch's overseas staffing requirements. Question. Pleas-e comment on the provision of the bill which would limit to four ears the length of time a Foreign Service officer can be assigned to a non- ore ervice fob in another agency. Is there any limit on the length of time civil servant can be detailed to a Foreign Service job? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 218 Answer. There is nothing in the civil service laws or regulations covering the length of details in either direction. We believe the 4-year limitation is reason- able. Details beyond this duration might turn into careers. In view of the early optional retirement available to Foreign Service employees, it appears prudent to assure that assignments made out of the Foreign Service carry reasonable limitations. Question. As you foresee the impact on the reform plan on the Peace Corps per- sonnel system, would Peace Corps have the flexibility to grant career status to any of its employees : To extend their employment beyond the traditional 5-year period? Answer. The 5-year period is more than traditional ; it is required by statute. Section 2506(a) (2) of Title 22 expressly prohibits Peace Corps staff service "for a period of more than 5 years." Status is a benefit of career or permanent appoint- ment rather than temporary appointment. Employees with Foreign Service staff appointments of unlimited duration are eligible for career status under Executive Order 11219 (1965)-State; AID, and ICA staff with unlimited appointment already have this benefit. Question. Do you see advantages in Peace Corps moving away from a strict 5-year rule? Answer. While we would not obiect to legislation removing this restriction in order to permit unlimited appointments, we believe that the Peace Corps is in a better position to see whether the 5-year rule accomplishes what it was designed to and at what cost. Turnover of employees carries an obvious cost in not per- mitting a career system. It is difficult for us to assess the costs of the current limitation in terms of dedication or expertise lost. Question. Under the present system, Foreign Service Nationals working for Peace Corps are in the same classification system as all other FSNs in U.S. mis- sions, although many of them have considerably greater responsibilities than other FSNs, including supervision of Americans. Could you comment on whether envisioned reforms will impact on this situation? Answer. Under section 444 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, foreign nationals are now paid under local compensation plans that are based on prevailing wage rates and compensation practices for corresponding types of positions in the local economy. This policy would continue, under section 451 of the Foreign Service Act of 1979. We are not aware of the specific situation which your question concerns. For- eign national positions, under both the present law and the proposed law, are classified according to their duties and responsibilities, and positions involving greater responsibilities are presumably classified in correspondingly higher levels. and thus paid at higher rates. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. The next witness that we have this morning is Ambassador Robert G. Neumann. Ambassador Neumann, we welcome you this morning and look for- ward to hearing from you. Mr. DERWINSKI. Madam Chairman, I was wondering if you would permit me a suggestion. Ambassador Neumann, I know you are a vet- eran and you have a long statement. If you could insert the entire state- ment for the record and maybe go over some high spots-I have read your testimony. and it raises more questions in my mind than anybody we have heard from. In fact, it is extremely provocative and enlighten- ing, and the sooner we get to the questions, at least I will be most happy. So, if you wouldn't mind. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think that is an excellent statement and an excel- lent suggestion. Can we put the statement in the record and just have you summarize? Mr. NEUMANN. Of course Madam Chairman, you can do whatever you like, up to a point. [General laughter. ] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. NEUMANN. Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I had intended not to read my statement because I get bored doing that, and if I get bored, surely you would be, but I did intend to summarize and perhaps highlight some points. Is this acceptable'? Mrs. SCHROEDER. That would be very acceptable. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT G. NEUMANN, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Mr. NEUMANN. If you would just prefer to ask questions, I would be glad to go into that. May I emphasize that I am a noncareer ambassador of 10 years' duration spanning one Democratic and two Republican administra- tions. I believe my highest campaign contribution was $500 made at a mad moment of total abandon. [General laughter.] Mr. NEUMANN. So, I do not believe I fit into any recognizable category, and I think that at the end of my statement you may find that this is in fact so. I have been encouraged by subcommittee counsel, and I hope this is not telling secrets, to address myself to broader questions than just the legislation. All my life, I have done what some woman or another told me to do, and I thought I should not interrupt my record at this late stage, so I want to address myself to two different parts, one the general and one the specific. I might say that my interest in responding to the testimony, which honors me greatly, was that I am deeply concerned with the quality of the Foreign Service, and this is the priority which I address. After all, those officers are to carry out a good and effective foreign policy that stands between peace and war. Now, the first subject to which I want to address myself and have in my paper is the distinction between career and noncareer ambassadors. Extreme statements have been made, of course, on that. There is a widespread idea that all noncareer ambassadors are campaign fund contributors of large amounts and otherwise unqualified. There was also the remark made by an unnamed high member of the Foreign Service that surely you would not appoint a businessman to command an army in war. On the other side, there are those who say that all Foreign Service officers are some kind of Ivy League elite, and do not really know any- thing about life in these United States, and very often having met the payroll is a criterion for life. I do not know where that comes from, but I have heard it a good many times. Let me state very strongly that what is needed for a good and effec- tive ambassador is a combination of qualities which you find in no single service and in no one background. There is always the combina- tion possible, and you find them in both. An ambassador should have a good idea of a cultural background of the country to which he is accredited. He should preferably know the language, although that differs very greatly from post to post. There are some places where it is ridiculous to send an ambassador without knowing the language. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I was Ambassador to Morocco, and to send somebody there who does not speak French is a joke, because he couldn't talk to anybody. I re- member my Nigerian colleague, who was a sad figure because he could not talk to anybody. He did not know either Arabic or French. Yet, it is always more important to have something to say, because if you have nothing to say and speak the language, you are likely to be found out more quickly. Rather than comparing an ambassador to a general, I would com- pare him to an executive of a large company. I do not believe that the president of a pharmaceutical company would have to be a chemist. He does, however, have to be able to absorb a large amount of knowl- edge on a large number of facts. He has to delegate. He has to be quick thinking. We all have had emergencies where, if you are wrong, you pay for it or somebody will pay for,it, and -there is this definite quality of leadership which, especially in an embassy, which is a relatively small organization, will be felt very quickly down the line, especially as the Foreign Service is a disciplined service and reacts very quickly both to leadership and to the absence thereof. I submit, Madam Chairman and Mr. Chairman, that there are noncareer appointments that do not come up to that level. I must, however, add that I have met a number of career Ambassadors who did not come up to that level, either. I will not name any names, be- cause I do not wish to spend the rest of my life in court, but the fact is that there is no guarantee in any career but only a combination of qualities, abilities, quickness and so forth, to performing that well. It is, of course, necessary that if one wishes to have a valid profes- sional career service, that only a small number of ambassadors be from outside the career. But I think that having noncareer ambas- sadors is a healthy thing, and in line with the more flexible and mobile character of our American society. Now, let me turn to the provisions of the bill. I want to emphasize that I would prefer-although I am, of course, open to all questions to the extent that I am qualified or reasonably knowledgeable-to confine myself largely to those things for which I have had an oppor- tunity of observation and reflection.. I think one or two of the gentlemen ahead of, me have referred to the absolute need of worldwide availability of the Foreign Service. This is one of the principal reasons, if not the only one, why I be- lieve in the need for a separate Foreign Service. If we relied only on volunteers, we might have a three times over staffing of Paris and Rome, and not enough people for hardship posts, and there might be very few people whom we could get for the latter who would be good. It is necessary, therefore, that people be assigned but there ought to be at least a possibility-I know it is not always achieved-to put the right person in the right spot. Also, I have to emphasize that, having been for a good number of years Ambassador to Afghanistan, where health facilities are a some- times thing, that there are considerable hazards, and one accepts those because one knows or should know: what one gets into. There are also family strains that have arisen in recent years between spouses, espe- cially about careers that have to be disrupted by foreign assignment. That cannot serve as an easy excuse. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 In the present inflation situation, I am sorely convinced, however, from my acquaintance with the Foreign Service-not as Ambassador, but in the 19 years when I was a professor before I joined the Foreign Service, and now later, when I am associated with the Georgetown Center for Strategic Studies-that the overwhelming majority of Foreign Service officers would prefer the uncertainty of Foreign Serv- ice life and the uncertainty of careers which may not work out, in other words, the competitive advantage over career and employment security. I am sure that is not true of everyone but I think that a good officer, and I really am frankly interested only in a good officer, is more in- terested in the competitive opportunities to do well and serve his coun- try than he is in security. It is also my impression, which I want to underline with deep conviction, that our Foreign Service compares very favorably with the foreign service of other countries with which I have come into daily contact in my 10 years of assignment. Of course it has a pro- fessional bias. So has every profession. In French there is a lovely word of "deformation professionelle," the deformation of a profession. None of us can be said to be without vice. Now, a professional service has obviously to be based on merit, on a true merit system, and the question is, is this accomplished by the present system, and the answer has to be a resounding "no." I want to emphasize, however, that some inequity is not the result of legisla- tion. A great many remedies could have been brought about under the existing legislation within the management and the working of the system. One has also to bear in mind the caveat or the unwritten foot- note that the same human beings with their failings who did not manage the old system very well are likely to manage, if that is the word, the new system, and that thought gives me pause. Now, the principal problem of the present really serious situation, and I want to say that it is very serious, as I am observing every day, is that there is a tremendous glut in the upper ranks. This glut, of course, travels all the way down. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Congressman Pepper and Mr. Glazer. I do agree that there are inequities. I speak with feeling on this subject. I myself am, to my profound and growing regret, over 60. [General laughter.] Mr. NEUMANN. But the system has to operate on some kind of as- sumption, and frankly, if the 60 limit were not observed, at least for the next 10 years or so, I think the system would become absolutely unmanageable. One other problem among several is the colossal inflation. Now, Chairman Fascell has referred to that. It is a very real problem, not only, of course, in the Foreign Service but in every service, including the military service. There is, in fact, no really true up-or-out policy, although I understand a new attempt was made recently on that. To a large extent it has been made worse by the cumbersomeness of griev- ance procedures and the permissive attitude of courts. The other reason that we all know for the glut is affirmative action. This is laudable, but nevertheless cuts down on spots, and remember, we are talking about a small service and 1 percent, 2 percent of spots makes a lot of difference. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Political appointments have penetrated even into the lower grades, that is, grades 5 and 6. These younger political, or not political, but mostly political assistant secretaries are uncomfortable with older deputies, besides which there again is an attrition of positions that would otherwise be available. The most absurd point of this evolution was reached on the pro- motion list of 1978, when only 13 people were promoted in the very crucial class from class 5 to 4. The situation has slightly improved since then as to numbers, but not very much. Even in those small figures, those that were promoted, and I know some of them, were not the best. The reason for that was humanitarian. Without promo- tion some of them might have been out on time and grade. So, in other words, there is no more merit system. An officer who in 1970 in class 5 would have had an expectation of rising rapidly to class 4 and 3 and be a clear candidate if he continued to perform well for class 1, can- not now have that expectation at all. In fact, the very best officers in the Department and in the Foreign Service now go in time frames, almost exclusively, unless they have the luck of an assignment in a place where they can have an opportunity for spectacular achieve- ment, pulling the King or the Prime Minister out of a fire or throw- ing themselves on top of a hand grenade. As I said before, the problem lies in the management of the system. By this I do not mean the management only, but throughout the system, the hands and the minds of all those who have authority, who write performance reports, and so forth. There is simply a lack of guts to tell a nice and not too bad but not good enough officer, Joe, I am sorry, but there is little opportunity for you to rise to a higher level, and it is better for you to look for other things, because after all, if you want to know, yes, Virginia, there is life after the Foreign Service. [General laughter.] Mr. NEUMANN..Now, again, this rating inflation is a common human problem. It speaks beautifully for humanity and very badly for ef- ficiency. If one is the only supervisor who says this man is fine but there are certain real weaknesses, then one damns him beyond all rec- ognition, because one stands out over all the others who are using up the superlatives. Also, if one does not make such judgments early in an officer's career, there is a double problem. Many supervisors do not want to be too harsh on younger officers when they are in a class where they have not yet acquired the right to an annuity; but if one does not weed them out at that time, then the mediocre at class 4 or 6 will come up and be mediocre at class 3, and then it becomes political. The ques- tion is, if he wasn't good, why is he suddenly being penalized? Well, very often he should have been penalized all along. So, in other words, penalizing is not a form of punishment. But what do we want? Do we want a social security system or do we want an excellent For- eign Service? I do not mean to sound as inhuman as I sound to my- self, but life is hard, and choices have to be made. If you are an executive, you have to make them. Now, as to the Foreign Service Act of 1979, I see some very definite improvements, that is, if properly administered. The threshold pro- vision to what used to be class 3 and now to the lowest class of the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Senior Foreign Service is, I think, a very important step and an op- portunity to divide those with real ability from those who are per- baps just coasting along-again, I say, if rigorously applied. The competitive provisions also have a managerial advantage in the sense that they are disguised. They are negative in a way, and can weed out without getting into. the problem of grievance proce- dures. But this has also a difficulty, and here I frankly think I owe this committee frankness. I am in a dilemma. I realize the need of manage- ment to weed out in order to loosen up the present intolerable system, and rigidity that exists. On the other hand, I am a little troubled that the quotas are to be set without some kind of consultations. Now, when I speak of consultations, I do not necessarily mean with the employees association or another established authority. What I have in mind is that management be obliged to consult outside its own ranks to assure that there is no.intention of cleaning out the ranks to open them up for the politicization of the Service. I might add, that politicization does not just come from the outside. It can come from the inside. It is the element of agreement and going along. I would like to see some control of this because that can be achieved by setting the figures in a way which does this without any- body being able to complain that he or she himself or herself was discriminated against. Here again, we are talking about a very small group. Then I am troubled by the short periods in grade which are being contemplated. I have several reservations about the short periods in grade. One is, there are differences between assignments. It is impos- sible to give everybody the same wonderful assignment where they can show how good they are. Some assignments are dull, and do not give that opportunity. So if the rating period coincides with a dull assign- ment, the officer is in difficulties. Second, and perhaps more important to me, is what goes on in the mind of the officer and what goes on in the mind of the evaluators when there are short periods. There can be punishment made for speaking out. This is true in every human organization. It is 'not just that people are so hidebound. It is that there is an enormous invest- ment in any given policy. Everybody joins in order to carry it out, and then a critic says, now, wait a minute, this isn't so good. That is an irritant. That is a part of the way human organizations work, whether the Foreign Service, the military, a church organization, or a tennis club. Therefore, what does an officer say to himself as he contemplates a short period of evaluation? He very likely will tell himself that it is better to quote the law and not rock the boat. This is not what we need in the Foreign Service. Mind you, I do not want everybody to rock the boat, but there has to be some rocking of the boat. Third, there is the fact that panels-and I think these Foreign Service panels are about as good as panels can be-I have not served on one, but I am very respectful of the care and objectivity which they bring to their task-have certain unwritten preference for the well-rounded officer. In times of crisis, the well-rounded officer is some- times pointless. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Forgive me for making a pun, but the person who is outstanding and may have some weaknesses to compensate for, that may be more. important for a crisis job. The brilliant but uneven person is likely to be not well evaluated if the rating period is shorter. Now, I have in my testimony that the parachute clause might give a little more assurance. I recognize that this is in a sense a contradiction of the idea of rapid eliminations, but I do feel, in deference to the excel- lence of the Service, that giving a little more security perhaps in parts of that Senior Foreign Service class might encourage the availability of courage. Finally, I made some suggestions which I do not suggest should be put into law, but some way should be found to bring them in. One suggestion was that one way of cutting the glut is to expand promotion, even double promotions beyond available slots. Now, this would have the difficulty of forcing a number of officers to accept positions below their rank, but at least they would have the satisfac- tion of recognition for their outstanding service-which presently simply does not exist. Another suggestion was that the willingness of rating or review- ing officers to be critical in their ratings and reviews would in turn become part of the reviews of their records and a panel would be instructed to take a negative view of those who rate everybody in the 90- or 80-percent class. Finally, the parts of the inspector's report which deal with personnel should be taken more seriously because those are not people who work with the rated officers con- stantly. Under the present system- and again, this is not part of the law but reality-inspectors' reports are not taken very seriously. I apologize, Madame Chairman and Mr. Chairman, that I spoke at such great length, but a professor almost automatically speaks 50 minutes. I hope I haven't. [Mr. Neumann's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT G. NEUMANN, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, CENTER FOR STRATEGIO AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY My name is Robert Gerhard Neumann. I was a noncareer ambassador of the United States for 10 years (Afghanistan and Morocco, 1966-1976) under one Democratic and two Republican administrations. Before that, I was a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, for 19 years, during which period I also served as Director of the Institute of International and Foreign Studies at that same institution. I am now associated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies of Georgetown University. I am honored by the invitation of this combined committee to present my views. I have been informed that you are interested in my general observations on certain aspects of the United States Foreign Service, as well as on the pro- posed Foreign Service Act of 1979. I shall, therefore, address myself to both categories, but primarily to those items on which I have had an opportunity for personal observation and reflection. A. Career and noncareer ambassadors This is a subject on which tempers and editorial opinions flare easily. There are those extreme views which look at "noncareer" or "political" ambassadors as invariably wealthy campaign contributors or close political associates of a par- ticular president, with few qualifications, interested primarily in the comfort and social aspects of ambassadorial life. There is also the other extreme view that-with very few exceptions, only career officers are qualified to serve as Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 ambassadors. On another extreme lies the opinion that Foreign Service Offi- cers represent some kind of rarefied elite, untouched by the realities of Ameri- can life, in particular, having never "met a payroll", and therefore people who ought to be viewed with distrust. As so often in life, truth is not on the side of either extreme. To get at a more balanced appraisal, let me state what an ambassador is and what he or she does. An ambassador is termed "the personal representative of the President", which in most instances, does not exactly mean what it says. What it does mean is this: just as the President performs the entire range of executive functions of the U.S. Government, so does the American ambassador represent and carry out, to the extent applicable, those same executive functions abroad. He or she is the representative of all departments, not the State Department alone, although he normally reports to and through the State Department. To do his or her work with maximum effectiveness and benefit for the United States, the ambassador must have as good and close a relationship as possible with the heads of state and government of the country to which he is accredited, while at the same time maintaining an independent and detached point of view, remembering at all times that he is the American ambassador to the host country, and not from it. The ambassador must have a keen appraisal and understanding of the culture, history, economy, religion, psychology, etc. of the host country without 'becoming an apologist for it. It is always helpful, but in many places absolutely essential that he have a command of the local language, although this is more important in one place than in another. But if a choice must be made, having something to say is more important than speaking the language, because if one has nothing to say and yet speaks the language, one is found out more quickly. An ambassador must also have a firm knowledge of the political and eco- nomic realities and problems of the United States ; lie should have the ability of being a good and careful negotiator, although the amount of personal negotiating may differ greatly from post -to post ; he should be a good manager, able to use effectively the specialized knowledge and experience of his multi-faceted staff. Dealing at the top level of the host government, he must have a good and up-to- date knowledge of the principal problems and projects with which both countries are concerned, without getting lost in details ; he should exercise an executive's good judgment as -to what he should handle himself and what lie should delegate. He must be quick-thinking and quick-acting in crisis situations, with good judg- ment and without panic. Because the Foreign Service is, on the whole, very disciplined as well as sensitive, it responds very quickly, as I experienced, to evidence of decisive leadershlip as well as to the absence thereof. An ambassador should have the personality, ability, and style to foster good cooperation and high morale among the Mission staff and local, as well as third country employees, but he must also be sufficiently toughminded when work per- formed is not up -to acceptable standards. He should be of such a personality as to make him highly acceptable among both the host country and the American community. At the same time, much of an ambassador's work cannot be success- fully accomplished without his ability to deal with the multiple and sometimes obscure channels of the Washington bureaucracy. He may be dearly beloved abroad, but if he cannot be effective in Washington he cannot be effective in his post. Above everything else lie has to keep constantly in mind that his principal overall function is that of advancing the interests of the United States to the fullest extent possible, without interpreting this narrowly or too selfishly, as such an interpretation would not be in keeping with the values and-ideals of our country. From what has been written above, it can be easily seen that no single career, not even the Foreign Service career, will necessarily and inevitably prepare a man or woman for an ambassadorial or an equivalent assignment. What is needed is a combination of personal qualities, experiences, training, attitudes and per- sonality. Whatever the background, he or she, being human, will fall short in some categories. The career Foreign Service officer who also has the other quali- ties defintely has an advantage. But even a successful Foreign Service career does not automatically produce good ambassadors. On the other side of the equation, a non-career appointee with little or no governmental experience is handicapped, and if he also has little knowledge of foreign affairs, he will be seriously, perhaps fatally handicapped. If, however, lie or she has all or most of the other qualities, as well as an analytical mind and a considerable ability to learn quickly, much of the handicap can, after a while, be overcome. Some countries actually prefer non-career or political ambassa- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 dors-sometimes for the wrong reasons. Others regard the appointment of such a person as denigrating their countries' standing. To make good selections one has to look at a variety of factors and personality traits. In my experience I have known both career and non-career ambassadors who were abominations. By and large, the worst non-career ambassador is probably somewhat worse-but not by much-than the worst career ambassador. And there are stars in both classes, as well as varying types in between. Hence, the peculiarly American system of political and career ambassadors has virtue, provided that the political group is strictly limited in size and that the appointees of both groups have the required qualifications. B. The Foreign Service The professional Foreign Service of the United States is, and must be, an elite corps in the same sense as the Marines are an elite among combat soldiers. But the word "elite" is sometimes misunderstood. The picture, or rather the carica- ture of the "striped pants" with strange accents from a few Ivy League col- leges is totally out of keeping with the reality which I experienced. In my 10 years as American ambassador, I have gained the deepest respect for the overall talent, ability, devotion, and patriotism of the United States Foreign Service. It compares well with the Foreign Services of every country with which I have had contact. I have never failed for lack of loyal and dedi- cated support. Of course I had subordinates of varying abilities and some, though happily not many, I had to remove. This is the unpleasant, but ines- capable duty of an executive. Because the responsibility of any but the tiniest diplomatic mission abroad comprises so many functions and relationships, both at home and abroad, it is vital that our missions be staffed by true professionals representing the greatest possible reservoir of personal and institutional knowledge, skill and memory. Career and non-career ambassadors alike, but especially the latter, are fools if they do not carefully consider the advice and warnings of their experienced professional staffs. I dare say that there is not a single ambassador who has not been saved at one time or another from a serious and embarrassing mistake by timely warning or advice. Of course the ambassador, like all top executives, must make the final. determination, but at least he should know what problems and pitfalls he is likely to encounter. To serve the mission well, Foreign Service Officers must be available world- wide, sometimes, alas, regardless of personal preferences, inconveniences, and dangers. For this reason alone, they cannot be under the rules and procedures of the general Civil Service. These dangers and inconveniences are very real. I myself lived under direct and personal assassination threat three times during my tours abroad, and nobody, certainly in Afghanistan, escaped a bout with a disagreeable form of amoebic infection, of which I had six. My younger son still suffers occasionally from its consequences. A casual visitor from home is some- times dazzled by the servants and the elegant houses of diplomats, as well as the social life of the diplomatic career abroad ; the visitor does not see that serv- ants give us as much work as they save, that plumbing and power can be highly individualistic, even picturesque, that the often frantic social life is not just for fun, but for the purpose of receiving and passing information in an informal setting, as well as for the ever-present duty of representing one's country and showing keen interest in even the dullest exhibitions. Foreign Service officers realize that they may frequently be out-of-pocket, especially in this age of inflation, and that their promotions and financial in- crements may arrive much more slowly than is the case with some of their class- mates who have chosen other careers. They realize also that worldwide assign- ments may place great strains on family life and ties, as indicated by a dis- tressingly high divorce rate and increasing rate of separations as spouses remain in the U.S. to continue careers while the FSO goes abroad. Most of them are willing to accept this, because they take justified pride in being members of an exceptionally highly-motivated, and highly qualified, as well as interesting life- long career service, whose effective diplomacy is what ultimately stands between peace and war. I can say with the deepest conviction that my 10 years of diplo- matic service have given me and my wife greater admiration for my colleagues and deeper relationships than have the preceding 19 years of academic life in a first-rate university. One of the rewards of a Foreign Service career is an opportunity, even at junior levels, to exercise very considerable degrees of responsibility. This of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 course depends on the type of assignment. Not every Foreign Service officer can be quite that fortunate. Usually, such opportunities for an early exercise of responsibility are more readily available at small and middle-sized Missions than at very large ones. Fortunately, most Missions are in the former, rather than the latter category. Moreover, in my view and experience the most useful career officer is one who is specialized, but not over-specialized, because the ex- clusive specialist almost invariably overrates the importance of his or her par- ticular sector. Hence, while career officers should, preferably, spend a major part of their careers in one or two geographic areas, they should have a few as- signments in other regions as well for the sake of balance. Similarly, their serv- ice should be well-distributed between home and foreign assignments. An under- standing of both the home front and the foreign areas is necessary for maximum effectiveness, especially as there is invariably a certain and frequently construc- tive tension between the home office and the Mission abroad. The career officer who is abroad all the time or almost so will inevitably lose touch with the reali- ties and the changes of American political, economic and social life. The officer who is always in Washington will be like the Admiral in Gilbert and Sullivan's "H.M.S. Pinafore", "who never went to sea". 1. General observations In view of the grave responsibilities resting on the professional Foreign Service, it seems evident that the United States must endeavor to have the best possible such service. Because it is a relatively small corps, and as the FSO component at most Missions is very small, poor quality and poor morale will quickly show up in a lowering of the total Mission performance. As every executive knows, a sound personnel policy requires that those with outstanding ability should be pro- moted rapidly and those who do not measure up should be dropped. Moreover, more is needed than brilliant ambassadors and ministers. First-rate trade nego- tiators, economic officers, discerning political analysts, quick-thinking and fast- acting consular officers are equally vital. Good armies must have good generals, but the generals cannot be effective without top notch company commanders and platoon sergeants. Now I want to address myself to two overriding questions : does the present personnel system of the Foreign Service achieve, within reason, acceptable prox- imity to this ideal? My regretful answer is-"largely no". The second question is, does the new proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 have reasonable expecta- tions of remedying the just-mentioned shortcoming? My answer is-"only in part, and that at some risk". Furthermore, some of the problems cannot easily be remedied by legislation or reorganization. They can be remedied by better and more courageous management. Let me be specific : this committee will undoubtedly have heard testimony to the effect that there is a glut, especially in the upper grades of the Foreign Serv- ice, that this has enormously retarded promotions throughout the system. Worse, the way this has worked out is that in view of the very small number of promo- tion slots available in recent years, promotions have tended to go not to the best and brightest, but rather to those adequate but not always first-rate officers, who, had they not been promoted, would have run out of time in class. On the other end of the scale, the situation has, if possible, been even worse. The "up-or-out" provision which is not in the 1964 law, but is clearly in its legis- lative history might come into effect, to reactivate it, but the application of this principle has been enormously complicated by cumbersome and endless grievance procedures and especially the frequent, and in my opinion, excessively permissive decisions of courts. Nobody would advocate the vesting of arbitrary power in management without adequate safeguards. But the system as it exists today is obviously not working well. I must also state in all candor that the operation of the in-itself laudable and even necessary affirmative action program (EEO) has materially reduced the number of slots available for promotion, not only at the level of entry of EEO officers, but at subsequent levels as well, though in decreasing measure. A particu- larly drastic example is the promotion list for February 1978 when only 13 offi- cers were promoted from classes 5 to 4, in contrast to over 30 promoted in 1967. Under such circumstances the loss to the regular FSOs of even a small number of slots has very disagreeable effects. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 228 Furthermore, political appointees have penetrated below the usual levels, some of them even down to classes 5 and 6, thereby further diminishing the number of available slots. This has had serious consequences. The Carter Administration in particular, while appointing fewer political appointees to ambassadorial positions, has brought in a good many more "politicians" into the lower ranks than was the case in previous administrations. The upshot of this is that we do not in fact have a merit system in the Foreign Service, or only to a very limited degree. An outstanding Class 5 officer who, with the luck of good assignments, would, in 1970 have reached Class 3 in a very few years, and would have been considered well on his way to class 1 and top level assignments, could not expect such good fortune in 1979, even though he had exactly the same qualifications and assignments. In fact, the time difference between promotion of the outstanding and of the merely adequate has become nonexistent except in a handful of instances, where the luck of assignment and the accident of events have given an opportunity for spectacular and highly visible deeds. No wonder the best officers in the Service frequently feel demoralized and that they are sorely tempted by far more highly paid offers from business, from Capitol Hill, or other careers. Moreover, middle grade and even junior officers who, because of their ability, occupy positions of considerable authority and sensitivity, are frequently, as I have often observed, handicapped by having to deal with foreign officials or military personnel far superior in grade and rank as compared to our people. This disparity does not remain hidden to their foreign counterparts who must wonder whether something is perhaps wrong with their American opposite number, or whether the fact that they have to deal with lower-ranking American personnel does not belittle their own status and dignity or that of their country. I have no hesitation in stating that the present system is badly in need of im- provement. But when I face the question,! whether the newly proposed act is likely to achieve this, I am, frankly, assailed by doubt. There are several reasons for this : The first is that much of the problem does not lie in the legislation but in the management and the operation of the system, and that many, if not. all of the evils, could have been remedied under existing legislation. The glut, especially in the upper ranges, did not occur overnight : it was clearly foreseeable, evident for a long time. A more rigorous thinning out, not just on the top levels, but through- out the system, could have been accomplished by a greater supply of courage. What this would have meant was the responsible officers throughout the system would have had the guts to look colleagues and co-workers in the eye and tell them frankly when their performance quality under review indicated that they were unlikely to rise above certain levels, or even that they would have been well-advised to seek a different career. This situation has worsened because the Freedom of Information system has compelled rating officers to show their findings to the rated personnel. Of course, it is also true that the previous system of secret rating lent itself to abuse. I should add that these shortcomings do not only affect the Foreign Service system but the military and certainly the Civil Service system as well. Moreover, it is an international and not just an American phenomenon. It is perhaps a demonstration of human nature at its most appall- ing and least effective. Another aspect of this lack of courage is the all-pervasive rating inflation. Few rating officers have the courage to tell their subordinates frankly where and when they have weaknesses. It is understandable ; they are dealing with people, especially in the small missions abroad, with whom they work and mix socially every day. How much easier it is to give only a good rating and thus "avoid trouble". To be sure, they are perhaps a few more superlatives left to confer upon the truly outstanding. But the margin of differentiation becomes so small that it may not be easily visible to promotion personnel. If on the other hand, as I have seen on a few occasions, a conscientious rating officer does muster the courage to render an objective, hence not uncritical evaluation, he will inevitably inflict such a destructive and possibly fatal damage upon the rated officer's career, as to be far out of proportion to the result intended. This is of course because in the ocean of inflated evaluations the few honest ones stand out like acts of eternal damnation. A few courageous rating officers cannot change the system without doing incalculable harm. Only if a very large number of rating officers were to change their attitudes and take courage into their hands would there be a change. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 This is even more the case when officers do not perform satisfactorily at a time when their age and years of service have not yet given them the right to an annuity. The temptation to take the easy ~N ay and and not deprive a substandard, but decent and honorable officer of his livelihood, becomes overwhelming and he is likely to be allowed to coast along. This is humanly admirable, but destructive to the system. I have encountered a number of grade 3 officers whose per- formance was only mediocre and who should have been weeded out long ago, but neither had they deteriorated suddenly so as to justify expulsion at that late time. In this respect, the new proposed legislation offers distinct advantages provided the threshhold requirements at (present) class 3 are vigorously en- forced. 2. Specific observations Is the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1979 capable of or likely to provide remedies'? To the extent that the present situation is the result of human fail- ings and gutlessness, the answer probably has to be no, because the same type of human beings will operate the new system. It is however, understandable that managers of personnel systems, any personnel systems, prefer laws and regula- tions which make it possible for them to do the unpleasant in an anonymous, im- personal fashion. If all, or most men and women were good, just, and courageous, few laws and regulations would be needed, but in the real world, this cannot be reasonably expected in any service or in any country. Therefore, one has to look at improvements of the system and its regulation so that the inadequate and mediocre can still manage (barely). Does the new legislation then, hold out the promise of substantial improve- ment of the present inequities? "To some extent, yes". But only to some extent and that at some cost. Moreover, there are other remedies available, or a least worthy of serious consideration, which are not in the present proposal. Reforms proposed for the present grades 3 to 1-in particular, i.e. the creation of the proposed Senior Foreign Service, will give management an opportunity for ac- celerating attrition in the upper ranks. I am, however, concerned over three possible shortcomings : (1) While the attrition is in part performed by the operations of panels, whose work in the past has been about as good as anything that could reason- ably be expected, it seems likely that a larger part of the attrition will be accomplished by management's unilateral right of quotas for each class and changing them at will. This, being impersonal and not, or certainly not osten- sibly directed against specific persons, could be arbitrary and open to abuse, unless subject to negotiations or independent review. One must overlook the fact that the total number of officers under consideration for these three classes is not large; therefore, even relatively small decreases in quotas can have drastic consequences and, in effect, clean out the ranks. If not carefully super- vised and subjected to reasonable review and negotiations, it could turn into an opportunity for unfairness and an opening wedge for politicization. I do not say that this is likely to happen, and I am confident that this was not the intention of the present management and administration which has proposed this legislation. But in the real world, situations win out over intentions and the new legislation is likely to be with us for a long time, as evidenced by the longevity of the 1946 act. (2) From sessions with many officers in the system and in management, I have concluded that the maximum time-in-class spans envisaged for each of the Senior Foreign Service steps are likely to be fairly short in order to achieve the desired attrition effect rapidly. I understand that 2-5 year and 1-3 year periods are currently contemplated. In my view this represents a double danger : (a) It is humanly impossible for all assignments to give Foreign Service officers equal opportunities to show their capabilities. An element of luck cannot be totally eliminated. If the rating period falls entirely or primarily into such an undesirable assignment the officer concerned will simply be out of luck. (b) More important for the good of the Service is the problem of con- formity. The best and most capable officers are not always the easiest to work with. Busy and harried superiors may become quickly irritated with sub- ordinates who bring bad news or warn too often. The fine line between reason- able criticism and carping is not always easily drawn. It may depend more on the irritation level of the superior than on objective conditions. What will be the effect of this situation on the officer who has a relatively short timespan in which to succeed? The Foreign Service has its quota of heroes, Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 but this is a quality which cannot be expected of every man and woman, espe- cially when heavy family responsibilities, peer pressure, and all the other factors of a competitive society exist. Very likely, the effect on many such officers will be that of "playing it safe" to mute their criticism, to "go along", to remain silent when perhaps they should have warned once more. Therefore, I feel it to be my duty to warn against short timespans and against removing them from the necessity of broad consultations and negotiations. The better labor-management relations and the reinstitution of the Board of Foreign Service are steps in the right direction but without mandated consultation they do not go far enough because experience teaches that the Foreign Service man- agement has merely consulted willingly unless circumstances compelled it to do so. Furthermore, the most outstanding officer is not always the most well-rounded. People with great gifts sometimes have some weaknesses. Especially when the evaluation period is short, such officers may fall by the wayside to the great loss of the Service. All systems are somehow slanted towards the well-rounded and against the outstanding but uneven. But in times of peril the well-rounded often become pointless. In sum, with short evaluation periods and the just men- tioned pull towards conformity, the risk of the proposed system may well be too great without a "parachute clause" which would give the individuals concerned a sufficient measure of security to do the unorthodox and the courageous. Human frailty as well as political temptations being what they are, I hope the committees will consider writing some of this into the law. I do not feel the need nor the competence to propose a specific language. It is not my intention to over-dramatize the possibility of abuse. One hundred percent guarantees are neither available nor desirable in life. I would give the present administration and management full credit for sincere intentions towards fairness and absence of evil intentions. But some future administration could be excessively political and, without adequate safeguards, would be capable of rapidly "cleaning out the ranks". While that might not in itself give immediate license for politicization, the signals would be read very clearly. Politicization need not always occur by bringing in outsiders. Certainly the experience of the Kissinger Administration provided drastic evidence how top level officers who were critical of policy did not fare well. Other administrations might be on a "youth kick" or harbor other fixed ideas. The possibility of abuse is there. 3. Additional recommendations I would like to conclude my testimony by suggesting consideration for certain measures which would, in my opinion, have very beneficial effects and which are not included in the present or past legislation or management practices : (1) Expanding promotions including double promotion for the exceptionally capable regardless of or at any rate well beyond available positions in the grades indicated. This would enormously bolster morale and give recognition and reward to outstanding, usually younger officers who 'are now held back by the paucity of positions. This would of course have some undesirable results in forcing officers to accept assignments below their grades. I believe, however, that a policy of expanding promotion slots to the level of past years would mitigate the hardships of the present system, until the glut has disappeared, provided the promotions were "permanent", i.e. that a newly or more rapidly promoted or double-promoted officer would not later on have to "pay back" by being unduly held up elsewhere in his career. (2) Fostering a major drive towards enforcing the "up or out" policy, not just in the senior grades but throughout the system. This will inflict personal hard- ships. The best we can hope is to strike a balance ; my emphasis is primarily to- wards a better and more effective Foreign Service. To bring about more truthful and more realistic evaluations two measures would seem helpful: (a) The willingness'or unwillingness of the rating or re- viewing officer to decrease the present evaluation inflation could he made part of the criteria on which those same rating and review officers would in turn be reviewed and rated both by superiors and promotion panels; and (b) more at- tention should be paid to the personnel evaluations contained in Inspector's reports. Foreign Service Inspectors both at home and abroad have two advan- tages: they are not the superiors and colleagues of the rated persons and they gain personal contact with the rated officer, which is not possible for the promo- tion panels dealing with a world-wide system. If the Inspectors' evaluations were taken more seriously by the promotion panels than is the case now, the evident discrepancies between the impressions of the Inspectors and of the rating and re- viewing officer would be noted and questioned. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 I would also like to draw the attention of this committee and of the Foreign Service management to an experiment undertaken by the U.S. Air Force in 1974. In order to counter inflated ratings, the panels were instructed to apply the following restrictions to the rating of all Lieutenant Colonels : 22 percent to the top category, 28 percent to the second, the rest to be divided among categories 3, 4, 5 etc. This created great unhappiness because it meant that 50 percent could not hope for promotion. Perhaps the figures were too harsh and the system was discarded. But it is significant that as soon as that happened, ratings jumped to the previous 98 percent excellent level. (3) Finally, attempts should be made to honor, recognize, and perhaps grant monetary reward to those officers who perform very well on certain levels but do not have the capabilities of becoming chiefs of mission. The Foreign Service needs good economic officers who may not be so outstanding at political analysis, it needs to foster managerial talent of which it is, in my experience, in short supply, it needs to encourage good economic and commercial officers, etc. Beyond all that, a massive educational and psychological effort should be made over time, and not just once, to impress on Foreign Service officers, espe- cially on new officers, that they should not measure their achievements solely by attainment of ambassadorial rank. In this respect the military services have perhaps succeeded somewhat better in making a larger proportion of officers accept the fact that only a few can become general officers to attain a flag rank, and that being colonels is also most honorable. Perhaps some way can be found to make the ambassadorial position a little less awesome, to induce and infuse a more collegial atmosphere. I will not deny that I fully enjoyed ambassadorial power and perks and anyone who claims that he does not is probably a liar. I am not so much thinking of the physical, statutory, or regulatory privileges and powers as I am of better human relations at home and abroad. In that respect, ambassadorial magnificence seems sometimes like the last vestiges of feudalism. The present moment is a low point in the morale and the cohesion of the Foreign Service. Reform is urgently required. The proposed new law is in many respects a step in the right direction, although I have earlier voiced cer- tain reservations which I hope will be taken into account. However, the main causes of the problem are not caused by the old legislation and may not all be remedied by the new law. Better and more courageous management is required, not only by the formal part of management but also by all officers throughout the system who have authority over others. Mrs. SCHROEDER. No; we thank you very much for being here this morning. I must say, though, as I listened to you, I am rather per- plexed as to what kind of a solution you foresee. You talk about giving managers more flexibility, but in so doing, don't you run the risk of internally politicizing the organization much more? How can you begin to guarantee that all managers are going to be efficient, objective? Where is that great objective criterion in the sky? Is it people who are not so well rounded but may be much more specialists? How do you get that proper mix, and how do you develop a system where you can be assured that you are going to have the type of Foreign Service that I think we would all like to have if we could just find an objective criterion that would not be abused in so doing? Mr. NEUMANN. Madame Chairman, the question is very pertinent. I do not think the total truth is available. Only God has the perfect truth and we have relative aspects thereof. As to performance reports, which are really the. gut of the system, I made a suggestion of how an office can be forced to be more critical by knowing that he or she will be rated and rated perhaps-poorly on some points if year after year reports come out that say that everybody is just splendid. Mrs. SCHROEDER. So you would say that you recommend not nec- essarily a quota system, but there would almost be a certain number that would not get through the gate, or you would become suspicious of the person writing the performance report. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 232 Mr. NEUMANN. That is correct. That is the same as when in one of your very large classes in the university, you have 80 percent A's. That is unlikely to be accurate. That happens now. I mentioned the attempt by the Air Force to say that only half of those rated can be in the upper percentage. It broke down because too many people were deprived of the possibility of advancing. That is why I hesitate directly to suggest that you set quotas, but the fact is, there has to be some method of gradation because there are some who are not as good as others. Yet this can be reflected in the performance report. One other thing is, the State Department Foreign Service form is excellent. In fact, it is too good. There are so many categories in which one has to respond that the narrative section becomes less important. This is a subject you can argue up and down Capitol Hill and beyond, but it is in the narrative that the distinction can be made. Then, of course, once the distinctions are made, the panel has an opportunity to judge. I think one comes closer to a good judgment with a narrative than with a range that may lie between 98 and 100. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, let's go to your experience. When you were an ambassador, did you write any negative evaluations? Mr. NEUMANN. I wrote some. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Were people ever selected out? Mr. NEUMANN. I did find that certain people did not come up to par and they did eventually leave the Service. There were not many. This was not done through evaluation. The ambassador evaluates- that is, rates, in contrast to reviewing other people's rating-only very few people, mainly his deputy and the heads of the agencies. Then he reviews a number of other people. Well, my deputy was selected by me, and he was not selected for his blue eyes. So, I found my evaluated people very good. I know of one of my deputies who had an attack of courage and rated somebody not altogether negative, but brought out his negative qualities, and there was hell to pay for that, because in effect he stood out and condemned the man, and the man was notified. Again, there is no way of doing this unless it is done very broadly. This is why I am concerned. Mrs. SCHROEDER. If it is done very broadly, then don't we compound the problem of getting well-rounded people? Mr. NEUMANN. Not if you have reviews by the officer, reviews by the next officer, by his superior, then by the panels, by the inspector's report, and if you also have, of course, a Secretary of State who is interested in the Foreign Service and in the personnel, and who lets it be known that he wants people to be evaluated with these criteria in mind. Then, as I said, in this relatively small and responsive Service, you will get results. There will be some hardships, yes, we cannot avoid those. Mrs. SCHROEDER. I guess I understand that, and I think I see what you are saying, but you also needed a Foreign Service that works well together. There must be some cooperation, and if you are forcing them all to be that competitive, when you put any kind of ratio on it, you get into the problem that we have in the military, where every- body is out trying to make the other guy look bad because of the internal politics of the situation. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Then there is another question when you analogize it to the mili- tary, and that is, how much of it is the State Department's fault for not taking the people and assigning them to tasks that they are most uniquely qualified to do. You take an engineer and have him peel potatoes. The extremes we know in the military very well. The ques- tion is, doesn't that happen a lot in the State Department, too, be- cause of its rotation system? You misuse a lot of your talent, so it is not just all the rating system? Mr. NEUMANN. Madame Chairman, these are big questions. As to becoming overcompetitive, I don't want to say whether this is or is not true in the military. I am not a military man, except for war- time service. But I do not believe this is a very serious danger in the Foreign Service. I think that, first of all, missions, speaking of the foreign operation with which I am better acquainted, missions are small. People serving there live in glass houses. If one looks bad, everybody looks bad. I am sure that many Foreign Service officers have been tempted not to tell something to a political ambassador and to let him fall on his face, but they do not do that because it is a damage to their country. I must say that the degree of patriotism and dedication is very, very high. I do not think overcompetition is a serious problem. If I were to achieve a mission again, and I got notice that somebody had de- liberately refrained from warning somebody who then performed badly, I think that person would not have a brilliant future ahead of him. I do not think overcompetition is a very real danger. Your second question, would you repeat it, please? Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, my question is, are we utilizing our man- power properly? Are we utilizing the talent base? Do we have a talent base assessment, and are we assigning them properly? Mr. NEUMANN. No, certainly often we are not. I do not know that there is an ideal assignment process, and of course some dull jobs also have to be done. But, no job is really dull unless it is filled by a dull person. I prefer the time when assignments were controlled by the bureaus rather than by the central system, because the bureaus knew the posts and they knew the people. Of course, there was favoritism, because people wanted to hold onto the good ones. I do believe that officers should not serve all of their Foreign Serv- ice life in one geographic area. It is good for them to understand that there is a world outside Europe or the Middle East or Latin America. It broadens them. It makes their minds more flexible. But looking at it from the field where I was, of course, quite frankly, fight- ing like hell to get the best possible officers, and the hell with the others, I found the bureau control system more flexible than the cen- tral system. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much. Congressman Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. Ambassador, what is your opinion of the present state of morale in the Foreign Service? Mr. NEUMANN. I think it is about as low as I have known it, and I have known it low most of the time. [General laughter.] There are many reasons, but one of them is, of course, the promotion system. I must say that Foreign Service officers do appreciate the opportunity to have important and exciting assignments, even when Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 they are not promoted, and of course that is very often the case right now. I do not want to go into things that might be interpreted as politi- cal. They are not intended so. Let us say that some administrations are better than others, and some do not exist when it comes to administra- tion. There are some funny things happening in the making of policy which appall Foreign Service officers. You find that to some extent in all administrations, but some, as I said, are worse than others. I think that would be about as much _ Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Ambassador, starting with the assumption that legislation is not the panacea for all ills, you do agree, however, that certain legislative reform is essential, and that this bill that is before us is a step in that direction? Mr. NEUMANN. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Coupled with all the other things, such as the required management of the entire program? Mr. NEUMANN. I support that. Mr. FASCELL. What do you think of the possibility of institution- alizing evaluations in a complementary sense-that is with an "e"- to the present system of positive evaluation, so as to spread the base of negative evaluation by institutionalizing negative evaluation? It is entirely possible, for example, that you could have a totally posi- tive, superior rating for an individual on the positive side, and the same officer, given the opportunity by meeting specific negative re- porting requirements, would be able to spell out those negative things, since everybody else would have to do the same thing. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, there is such a requirement in the present forms. Mr. FASCELL. But that is narrative. Mr. NEUMANN. No, it is in the form that he has to say which are Mr. FASCELL. I understand, but isn't that a selection process of pick 1 out of 5 or rate from 1 to 10 in a scale of judgment factors that are laid out in the evaluation form itself ? In other words, if your choice is poor, medium, and good, or what- ever the ratings are on a scale of zero to 10 or zero to.5, it is going to be very difficult for that one person just checking off in that fashion, you see. Mr. NEUMANN. Well, sir, in the present forms, or at least those that I am familiar with, there was a question something like, "which are the disadvantages or shortcomings of the officer," and you have to respond to that. But if you ask me in effect is this working as desired, the answer has to be "no." Therefore, I recommended a way in which the rating officer is forced to consider not just the brilliant qualities but also the other ones. I would personally prefer this in regulations and perhaps in the legisla- tive history of this bill rather than in the text. Mr. FASCELL. Oh, yes, I wasn't thinking of legislation. Mr. NEUMANN. Because we are talking about an experiment. Mr. FASCELL. I am not talking about the text of the legislation either at this point. That will be far beyond what I would like to see in legislation. The legislation is to lay down the broad, basic concepts and criteria. The rest of it is up to common sense in management, but I was not thinking about that. I was thinking about a review of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 reforms in the program so that you would institutionalize in a non- narrative sense negative qualities in the same sense now that you rate judgment, initiative, leadership on a scale from zero to 5 or zero to 10, to force a rating on those negative qualities. That is what I have in mind. Not being a personnel expert, I wouldn't have any idea how you do that, but I think there might be a way to do it. Mr. NEUMANN. I would agree with the desirability of this, Mr. Chairman. My preference would still be to put it to the officers Mr. FASCELL. In other words, run it through the system. Mr. NEUMANN. Run it through the system, but then have the review panels of the Foreign Service go over the book and say, here is some- body who has had nobody but geniuses in his commission. Let's look into this. Mr. FASCELL. Given the limited number of geniuses, I think it might be a good criterion. What do you think about the current system? Mr. NEUMANN. I do not think it is working very well. I am opposed to it. I think it had a good purpose to elevate, for instance, economic officers. One of the weaknesses of the Foreign Service is thinking that political officers form a special elite. I know there are hundreds of reg- ulations that say differently, but it ain't so. The economic and commercial officer is not as honored in the system as the political officer. Then there is the very difficult question of the consular cone. It is mostly juniors who are assigned to consulate duties. That is a good thing in many respects, because it is a tough but very good experience. One is dealing with the dregs of humanity who have gone into prisons and hospitals and I would hate to see an officer in the upper ranks who has not had that experience, because an ambassador certainly would at one time or another have some horror happening wherehe has to step in and has to understand what the position of the consular office is. At the same time, consular work as such really does not go into higher ranking jobs. To keep a person in that kind of activity is to say that this person really is not fit for other duties. Mr. FASCELL. With or without the current system, don't you have an internal dynamics problem that legislation cannot address directly, which means that as long as you do not have mobility in a small serv- ice, and somebody has got to do the nitty gritty work, that person may be stuck in a dull job for years ? Mr. NEUMANN. That is true, sir. You have had assignment to these jobs before you have had a system. What we need is a personnel system as well as counselors to the individuals, classes of officers who seek a change in assignment if the man is not frozen into a consular assign- ment for 15 years. Mr. FASCELL. So that is an internal management problem. Mr. NEUMANN. That is an internal management problem. Mr. FASCELL. Doesn't that also then get back to one of your ideas about short-term time in grade? If because of the lack of mobility a person is frozen not in job but in time, how does that solve anything? Mr. NEUMANN. In my experience, which evidently is limited al- though it is fairly long, this does not happen too often. The persons are in effect competing for assignments. The rules may not say so, but they have friends who walk the corridors. They figure out where Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 there are openings. The positions in which outstanding qualities can- not be shown are not that many. The consular officer can show out- standing qualifications, and I have had some, fortunately, who were just absolutely wonderful and who are now higher up in a career. They showed those qualities already there. You may he a class 6 or 7 officer or even 8, because there is no class 9, but when somebody walks in from the street with a gun on you or a defector, or when you have something involving a citizen in a very tricky kind of situation, a decision has to be made right then and there, and it had better be right. Mr. FASCELL. With the personnel system of any given agency as an inverted cone, and a given rate of flow from the top due to separation, and a given rate of flow coming in at'the bottom, and no change in num- bers because of OMB requirements or OPM requirements or the Con- gress or whatever it is, the only opportunity available for mobility is to move people inside the system. Now, whether that gives you upward mobility or not is something else again, because the rate of time and grade is dictated, if you are going to keep people from moving out at the top. Mr. NEUMANN. You have the 60-year out. You have the necessary narrowing from the fact that there are only so many Presidential ap- pointments available, so you have the weeding out. All that I think is essential to merit the assignments of people, whether you have a cone system ? or not, is to give people a chance not only to show what they can do, but also to learn. The Foreign Service, like many other things, is a constant learning experience, and some people look at the ability to learn and turn it away, and some are eager to jump to it. That is where the difference comes to. I think the system is manageable. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Derwinski. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Ambassador, I would like to get your specific recommendations, and then tie them back through your general com- mentary. There are a couple of points you made which I think are very practical. If I could have you look at page 12 of your testimony, the second paragraph, where you speak of middle grade and junior officers who have assignments "in which they must deal with foreign officials who outrank them in grade. What you are really saying is, where there is a certain amount of protocol, a standoffish attitude of a person with a superior title, and their reluctance to deal with some- one of a lesser title, that ties into your other recommendation that we accelerate promotion by title. Now, would you tie these two points together? You didn't in your statement, but it seems to me that that would be your solution; wouldn't it? To -give people title increases rather than pay increases along the way. Just to have these more impressive titles, they are able to deal more effectively with equivalent foreign officials. Mr. NEUnMANN. First of all, on dealing with foreign officials, you are sneaking, for instance, about my experience in the Middle East and South Asia. Those are in young countries where officials are young in years, but often of very high ranks. This lies in the nature of the birth rate and the education and so forth. There also are civilizations Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 which are highly rank-conscious, and there is a certain difficulty in relating an officer with very junior rank to one with a very high one. After a while, he overcomes it if he is outstanding, because the qualities win out over rank, but not in the beginning, and he may not have another chance. Secondly, there is a certain amount of entertaining involved, and the entertainment allowance is never sufficient in any rank. Especially junior officers or middle-grade officers frequently have to dip into or usually have to dip into their pockets. Certainly I did as ambassador and I did not entertain lavishly, and I have a wife who is a good manager. But I was speaking not just of rank in the embassy, which would be first, second, or third secretary or consul, and so forth, because that corresponds to other criteria, but I was speaking of grades and class, because believe me, the foreign officials know thoroughly what class one belongs to, just as we know where they stand in their pecking order. My remark was for promotions in the Foreign Service, and not to titles. That is a separate question. The titles in missions, Mr. Der- winski, are sort of an old-fashioned one. You have an ambassador or Minister and the first or second or third secretary from the days in the 18th century, where that was all that you had. Many of these titles are figurative, and have no practical significance. Mr. DERWINSKI. Just as an aside, I share your concern that we have been rather miserly with the representation allowance of our personnel abroad. Mr. NEUMANN. Did I say that? Mr. DERWINSKI. Well, you talked about having to dip into your own pocket, and I personally feel that we should be much more liberal in that regard, but that has nothing to do, of course, with this legislation. What about the point you discussed, and here I am referring spe- cifically to page 19 of your testimony, in the first paragraph, where you specifically mentioned the Kissinger administration and, the unac- ceptability for the Secretary of having top-level officials associated with him who might be critical of any of his policies. I understand he is known as a man of substantial ego, but you did imply that certain appointments of younger officers in this adminis- tration would produce a different effect because of the age difference. They do not seek the counsel of subordinates who are much older than they are. Mr. NEUMANN. I said two different things. One is, Secretary Kissinger had outstanding qualities, but he did not suffer from a lack of confidence that he was right. Mr. DERWINSKI. You are being the typical professor. [Genera) laughter.] Mr. NEUMANN. I will let that pass. [General laughter.] There were many interesting situations in which people who did not share his views found themselves disadvantaged. This is perhaps another subject, but there is something bigger in not only the Foreign Services but in any system. Policymakers can argue only so long and eventually have to decide. Sometimes there is great presure as if there were the unwritten footnote, take all the time you want, say 3 minutes. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 In such a situation of pressure, the critic is not welcome. The dividing line between constructive criticism and obstructing is a very fine one. I think Foreign Service officers by and large know that dividing line, but some are more sensitive than others. There is, therefore, the danger, and I know cases of that, where an officer was doing his duty and yet was disadvantaged. I will give one example, but I won't name names. I think that will keep me out of court. In Pakistan-I am speaking now of a country in which I was not Ambassador, but next door-there was always tension before the war of 1971 between the Embassy in Islamabad and the Consulate General in Dacca, which was then called East Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh. When the rebellion which led to war started, the Consul General in Dacca reported accurately that atrocities were committed. This was not welcome in our Embassy. That man's career did not profit from that. He spoke up. He warned. He was right, and sometimes in every service, military or what have you, it is dangerous to be right. Even in married life, this can happen. [General laughter.] Mr. DERWINSKI. How well I know. [General laughter.] I was interested in your testimony. I gather you have gone far beyond the bill which you dealt with overall what you say is a needed but perhaps just partial reform. Would that sum up your viewpoint? Mr. NEUMANN. You read me exactly right. Mr. DERwiNSxi. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Nothing. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Congressman Leach. Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Mr. Ambassador, I would just like to compliment you on what I think is an extraordinarily thoughtful analysis, particularly of the very personal aspects of the Foreign Service system, and I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly with the observations about the cone sys- tem. I think cones are for Good Humor men and not for the Secretary of State. I would like to follow up on one comment that you made in response to another question, and ask if you could elaborate on it as applied to the morale problem in the Foreign Service. As you know, this administration has made some controversial for- eign policy decisions, but putting aside the substance of the decisions, you implied that there are some institutional aspects of decisionmak- ing that are troublesome to you. Could you comment on those institu- tional aspects that bear on morale?, Mr. NEUMANN. Yes. There is always a built-in tension between the State Department and the White House. This is probably inevitable, and has gotten, worse in recent decades, because of the change of the political system. The elected President, whoever he is and whatever party, comes into office surrounded by a group of young and eager aides, campaign aides who now believe that the world will change because they are there. They have a mandate. They were elected, and this is, after all, pretty powerful. The State Department-not just the State Department, but the Defense Foreign Minister and the British or the Russian-it is amaz- ing how much we are alike there. It is a very depressing idea. They all believe that foreign policy has to rest on continuity and predict- ability, and not on violent gyrations. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 There is between the State Department and the White House a built-in conflict which is, I find, constructive. It is kind of a rage which teaches, because there is on the part of not only the Foreign Service but any foreign service always an excessive belief that one should do things the way they have always been done. One should not worsen relations with other countries, even when you ought to worsen them. On the other hand, there is a political impulse toward rapid and sometimes dramatic changes. The two impulses have to rub against each other. Sometimes the Foreign Service feels cut out of the deci- sion. This has been true under several administrations. The profes- sional Foreign Service thinks the White House is somewhat unprofes- sional, and vice versa. Mr. LEACH. In your testimony, you discussed the serious threat of politicization of the Foreign Service. For example, you said the 5 and 6 levels have had an increased number of political appointments dur- Zfd this this administration. Do you consider that to be a serious problem, how extensive is it? Mr. NEUMANN. It is extensive and it is serious. It is not necessarily precedent-setting, because such appointments are Presidential deci- sions. I hope that future administrations, whether it is Mr. Carter or somebody else, will reconsider this. In terms of an already existing glut, it means another cutting in on the few promotable positions which are available. The glut did not happen overnight. It took us a long time to recognize it. Mr. LEACH. One of the most thoughtful observations you made, I thought, related to the principle of double promotions. In fact, last year, in the Civil Service reform bill, I submitted an amendment which was accepted on double promotions in the Civil Service, but which got lost in the House-Senate conference. I think that is a very, very positive suggestion. Frankly, I would hope we could incorporate that type of wording within this particular bill. It strikes me as one of the most worthwhile ways of recognizing the very best in the career service. Mr. NEUMANN. Thank you, Mr. Leach. I would like to add that I have received in recent years, in this year let us say, inquiries from young foreign services officers in the middle grades about advice of possibly seeking other careers because of that very thing. Those are all people who I hope would not be lost to the Foreign Service. Mr. LEACH. Let me just ask to go a little bit further. One of the problems is the demography in the Foreign Service. You have a glut of people at the top agewise. Clearly the administration has recom- mended to us, and you have indicated that you are in sympathy with, the prospect of mandatory retirement based on age. Are there institu- tional ways that can get at the very same thing in a nonpersonal way? We stress nonpersonal because you emphasized it so often occurs that it is very difficult for bosses to tell subordinates they are through. In abstract, it is easy to say that mandatory retirement in the For- eign Service should be handled by good management, but it is often difficult to have confidence in that approach. For example, could one enforce earlier retirements without setting a mandatory retirement age by abbreviating time in class and then making extensions allow- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 able only up to a given percentage? Would that type of approach get at the same end, or would you think that would have inherent practical problems? Mr. NEUMANN. Of course, in the upper ratings, the suggested sys- tem of the Senior Foreign Service has that effect by the setting of quotas. I have addressed myself to that. In the junior and middle rate, I think the time in grade could in some instances be shortened. I am not too certain about that. What is done in some industries and some universities is that some organized assistance is given to people who may be quite adequate but not quite good enough, assistance to find other careers for them so that the human problem is answered. Per- haps this could be done here. But if you want an excellent service, some people will not make it. There is no way out. We were created equal by opportunity, but not by capability. Mr. LEACH. Thank you. I agree with that observation. I might only say that your presence before us certainly vindicates the price of hav- ing some noncareer ambassadors. We are honored you took the time to testify. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Congressman Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank you for your testimony. I have read all of it, but I apologize for being out of the room for some of it. Let me ask you, you suggest that there should be a parachute clause. Would not this increase the problem of the glut in the upper ranks of the Foreign Service? Mr. NEUMANN. Yes, Mr. Buchanan, and I have admitted that I am guilty of contradiction in the dilemma. If one were sure of perfect evaluations, I would drop the parachute clause, but because of the danger that some people who are good may nevertheless fall by the wayside, especially when the quotas are small, I wanted to raise that point. I am not making it as a strong point, and I am frankly divided within myself. Fortunately, it is you who will decide and not I. Your point is well taken. This is also in the view of management. I am a little bit torn here. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. I appreciate very much your testimony. You make a point that we have had a good many amendments offered around here to require the language capability of various persons, and I was particularly taken with your point that while it was important if you have some- thing to say, if you don't have anything to say, that it would be ap- parent more quickly if you spoke the language. I must say I found some merit in that remark. Mr. NEUMANN. If I may extend it a little bit, I would like to say that I speak personally three languages completely fluently, two others fairly well, and two others badly, not counting Latin and Greek, so I am attuned toward language capabilities, but it varies greatly. Now, in a French-speaking area it is simply senseless to appoint somebody who does not speak French, because the French are arrogant about their language. But you are just not there when it comes to a difficult language like Arabic and Persian, which I know somewhat. There, to Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 require knowledge of the language is asking an awful lot. The SSI of. course, in Arabic is 20 or 22 months. Now, fortunately, there are many posts where Arabic is required, but when it comes to Persian, that is spoken in only two countries, Iran and Afghanistan. That is quite a disincentive. In some countries, for instance, in Saudi Arabia, some of the top structure of the country is not quite comfortable in English. Many people are. Also, there are countries where a King or a President feels that he ought not to speak in a foreign language even if he understands it quite well. There you are heavily handicapped if you do not speak the language. If you work through an interpreter, then you work through smebody who, if he is not from your own staff, you never know how he interprets, and I have seen some very spectacular examples of misinterpretation, some of them intentional. In one country, which I will not mention, not one to which I was assigned, the chief interpreter has a power position which is quite un- paralleled and which has in effect put a barrier between the Ambas- sador and the people with whom he has to deal. Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, somebody who speaks only Southern Baptist needs an interpreter. I certainly appreciate what you are saying. [General laughter.] Mr. NEUMANN. That is a very important language. Mr. BUCHANAN. That is the language of our President. [General laughter.] Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much. Congressman Harris. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I appreciate your testimony and the insights you have given us. I have one, perhaps two questions. I see some problems discussed in the Foreign Service. They seem to be analogous to some of the problems we have in our military. As far as the concept of up or out, how does that relate to your testimony? Do you think up or out type of policy is beneficial to the Foreign Service? Mr. NEUMANN. Yes, sir, I do. You cannot have excellence unless there is an up or out policy. There is no excellence if you are kept in the same class for a long time. In the military service, of course, you have the additional necessity that you cannot have an army in which people are beyond the age in which they can physicially perform. The mental performance is not always related to age. But I see no other way. In other words, yes. Mr. HARRIS. I have always wondered. I recently have had the experi- ence of discussing problems with the military over the weekend. I often wondered, though, if there isn't a type of person who is an ex- cellent captain that we really sort of destroy by promoting to major. Why shouldn't there be those who can have a career as a captain with- out being promoted to major? Mr. NEUMANN. The point is well taken, Mr. Harris, but first of all, in the combat services, you wouldn't want a 50-year-old captain com- manding an infantry company. Mr. HARRIS. Excuse me for speaking that way, but why do we insist on application of the "Peter Principle" with regard to the Foreign Service? Do we continue to promote someone until he has reached his level of incompetence? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. NEUMANN. I have found this is frequently true, although noth- ing that anybody says will always be true with human beings. If you keep a person in grade for a very, very long time, he is likely to get more frigid, dissatisfied with life, and less useful. Mr. FASCELL. How long have you been in public office, Mr. Neumann? Mr. NEUMANN. Not long enough. I declare myself incompetent on that. [General laughter.] I think there are sufficient regulations which allow flexibility for the one unusual person, and of course we got to the question of special- ists who have an unusual and very valuable specialty which is not pro- motable by its nature, but the Foreign Service does not have too many of those, and there are other ways of making them available. Mr. HARRIS. You were speaking of the one a while back. I was trying to visualize government in general terms. If we picture each agencyy as a cone, and we had to work with personnel on a series of cones, was wondering if there isn't vertical mobility between the Foreign Service and other elements of the Government just as there is with other agencies. I have known people who were trade fair specialists in the Department of Agriculture who got a better job in the Depart- ment of Commerce. Is there a special problem with. the Foreign Service, that that type of mobility is not possible, that they have to fund upward mobility within a particular cone? Mr. NEUMANN. The point is well taken. I think there is a problem. I do not look to other Government agencies or departments as pro- motional opportunities, but I do think we could-especially if my recommendation of more promotions even if there are no slots were adopted-find a temporary place for a Foreign Service officer in State and county government. It would be very good for him. Or even-now, this is very difficult to manage-in industry or in a bank. It is very important that a Foreign Service officer when he goes abroad has a good grasp of the realities, political, economic, employ- ment, the whole. I personally would love, if it were possible, for most of the better economic counselors to have had a couple of years in a bank or in a major business. This has certain problems, but certainly I think they could serve in State government, even local government-and I think there have been some such cases-as well as in other Federal agencies. I know of one former officer in one of my embassies who is still in the Foreign Service, but working in the Environmental Protection Agency, and he finds that very absorbing. There is one danger, of course, which is the same as in the military service for attaches. That is, while one is out of line, promotion be- comes much more difficult. But again here, management can improve that. This is not something that is easily legislated or put even into rules. Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much, and again, we thank the witness for being here this morning. I think that is the last witness of the morning, land with that, the hearings are adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1979 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, AND COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittees met at 9:30 a.m., in room H-236 of the Capitol, Hon. Dante B. Fascell and Hon. Patricia Schroeder presiding. Mr. FASCELL. We meet today to hear Mrs. Marguerite Cooper King who is vice president for State of theWomen's Action Organization. That does not sound right to me. Is that correct? Mrs. KING. Vice president for State Department of the Women's Action Organization. The Women's Action Organization covers three agencies. We have three vice presidents. Mr. FASCELL. Following Mrs. King's testimony we will continue with Secretary Read. Mrs. King, we are delighted to have you here and we will be happy to hear from you. STATEMENT OF MARGUERITE COOPER KING, VICE PRESIDENT FOR STATE DEPARTMENT OF THE WOMEN'S ACTION ORGANIZATION Mrs. KING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you something about what the organization is very briefly. The Women's Action Organization represents employees and their spouses of the three foreign affairs agencies, State, AID, and USICA. It began as an ad hoc group in 1970 dedicated to the removal of discrimination from our personnel system and to promote equal opportunity for all employees regardless of sex. This ad hoc group to improve the status of women in the foreign affairs agencies received the Presidential Management Improvement Award in 1972 for the reforms it had stimulated. These included the revision of policies and regulations to remove barriers and penalties imposed on Foreign Service women employees who married. Up to that time it was virtually impossible for a Foreign Service woman em- ployee to be married or to have a dependent. It also was to prohibit discrimination in assignments Mr. FASCELL. What year was the ending of the dark ages? Mrs. KTNG. 1971, sir. To establish the right of family members to be considered private persons and the right to work abroad amongst other reforms. (243) Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 In recent years we have supported upward mobility programs for support and officer level employees in the civil service and the Foreign Service, participated in the Department's review and formulation of an affirmative action program, supported class action suits against the Department of State for sex discrimination, sponsored the spouses' skills data bank and the formation of the Family Liaison Office and provided a series of programs for all employees explaining the avail- able procedures for personal career advancement. I come before you today on behalf of the Women's Action Organi- zation to ask that equality of opportunity in all aspects of employment in the Foreign Service be included as a statutory requirement of the Foreign Service Act of 1979. In its present form the legislation describes as an objective in sec- tions 101 (a) (3) and (b) (2) that the Foreign Service should be repre- sentative of the American people, operated on the basis of merit with fair and equitable treatment for all. The Foreign Service Act of 1946 also called for a representative service but it is not now representative in numbers, grades, functions and regions. We have not come here to complain but to set out the facts and to suggest some parts of the proposed legislation that need to be changed to facilitate equal employment policies and practices to insure that American foreign interests are represented by the best that this Nation has to offer. Let me speak first about women employees of the Department with some mention of our sister agencies, AID and ICA. I will then turn to the concerns of Foreign Service spouses, overwhelmingly but not totally women. Foreign Service officer-level women in the three agencies face similar problems. They are few in number. They make up only a minuscule proportion of the senior grades and policymaking positions. They are not given positions commensurate with their qualifications and poten- tial and their promotions are slower than for their male colleagues. Let's first look at Foreign Service officers, FSO's, in the Department of State. Women make up only 10 percent of the entire FSO Corp. I have provided a chart so that we can see where the women are and what kind of work the women are doing. This is on page 16 of the attached, part of a brief filed in the U.S. District 'Court for District of Columbia as part of two class action suits brought against the Department. [The information referred to follows:] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 CURRENT STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FURTHER DEMONSTRATES SYSTEMIC SEX DISCRIMINATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 1. INTAKE OF WOMEN AS FSO'S As we have noted previously (February 17, 1978, Mem., p. 9), while 44 percent of college graduates were women, in fiscal years 1970-77 women made up only 7 percent, 6 percent, 17 percent, 16 percent, 22 percent, 13 percent, 20 percent, and 16 percent of the officers appointed to the Foreign Service. Memorandum Junior Officer Intake, fiscal year 1966 through March 1977, Richard Masters, PER/BEX, to Dudley Miller PER/REE, March 2, 1977. In 1978, only 16 percent of the officers appointed were women. FSO Intake By Exam (By Sex), M/EEO, 10/5/78, Pl. Ex. 3. Thus, since 1975, the average intake has been only 16 percent women. This is in spite of the fact that recent statistics show women earning more bachelor's degrees than men in foreign area studies and foreign languages (Report on Women in America, The United States Commission for UNESCO, p. 16, Pl. Ex. 4) : Foreign languages--------------------------------------------------------------- 14,879 4,600 Foreign area studies------------------------------------------------------------- 1,739 1,464 2. PLACEMENT OF WOMEN IN CONES AND PROMOTIONS We have explained previously how the Foreign Service is divided into func- tional fields of concentration which are referred to as cones. February 17, 1978, Mem., p. 9. Within cones, there is further division into functions. We have previ- ously shown that female Foreign Service officers are disproportionately placed in cones which provide less reponsibility and are less advantageous in terms of career advancement. Women are placed far more than men into the cones which have fewer positions in the upper classes and which receive fewer promotions. They therefore have far less opportunity to reach the top. See August 24, 1976, Mem., pp. 4, 12-14; February 17, 1978, Mem., pp. 32-33; July 7, 1978, Mem., pp. 6, 7. Department of State statistics as of December 31, 1978, and of January 31. 1979, further demonstrate this disparity. The Department's own analysis of March 1979, shows that on December 31, 1978, only 36.4 percent of all women were in the Executive, Program Direction, Political, or Economic/Commercial cones or functions while 63:6 percent of the women were in the Administrative and Consular cones. Women FSOs By Primary Skill (Cone) 12/31/78, M/EEO, 3/79, P1. Ex. 13. In addition, the table on p. 246, derived from the Department's own statistics, compares male and female FSOs by rank and cone or function as of January 31, 1979, and reveals little, if any, change from earlier statistical patterns. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 COMPARISON OF MALE AND FEMALE FSO'S BY RANK AND CONE OR FUNCTION (DATA AS OF JAN. 31, 1979) Economic/ Rank Political commercial totals Rank totals by sex com- Cone or function M F M F M F M F M F M F bleed M F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Career Ambassador--------------------- ---------- ----------- Career Minister----------------- 14 ---- ------ - -------- --------- ;;7 7 2 ------------------------------------ ----------- 17 17 - 51 1 34 ---------- 265 257 8 FSO-1----------------------- Z/ c 110 1 FSO-2------------------------- 1 ---------- 49 ---------- FSO-3--------------------------------------------- 10 ---------- FSO-4----------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-5----------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-6----------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-7----------------------------------------------------------------- FSO-8----------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotals (by sex)--------- 42 2 178 Function columns totals----- 44 38 2 16 1 104 1 91 2 305 299 6 104 12 49 7 289 8 182 12 673 634 39 107 14 93 19 294 12 225 11 775 719 56 93 17 114 48 216 18 103 12 621 526 95 78 24 86 49 124 12 95 21 489 383 106 36 5 44 12 17 2 38 7 161 135 26 4---------- 4 2 ------------------------------ 1 11 8 3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 In addition, there were 3 male "specialists" (doctors, lawyers, etc.) (1 FSO-1, 1 FSO-2, 1 FSO-3) and 1 female on detail (FSO-5). Grand total FSO's as of Jan. 31, 1979: 3,321. Data derived from Department of State computer print-out as of January 31, 1979. Pl. Ex. 5. This most recent data shows that while 34.7 percent (1.149 officers) of all FSOs are in the desirable and advantageous political cone, only 15.8 percent of female FSOs (54 officers) are in that cone. Even more dramatic is the fact that while 5.4 percent (174) of all FSOs are in the program direction cone, only 0.6 percent (1 officer) of all female FSOs are in that cone. In addition, 1.3 percent of all FSOs (44) are in the "Executive" function but only 0.5 percent of female FSOs (2) are in that function. Conversely, while only 16.7 percent (553 officers) of all FSOs are in the less desirable and less advantageous consular cone, fully 41.1 percent (140 officers) of all female FSOs are in that cone. The situation has remained the same or worsened since December 31, 1978. On that date there were four women in the Executive function and two in program direction. Pl. Ex. 13. Even that small representation had been halved by January 31, 1979. Thus, women continue to be kept out of professionally desirable and advantageous cones and functions while men are placed in the desirable and advantageous cones and functions in disproportionate numbers. The desirability of certain cones and functions is also evident from the table. There were 232 FSO-1s occupying positions in the Executive function and the Program Director, Political and Economic/Commercial cones. They constituted 87.5 percent of all FSO-1s. There were 2,073 men (69.9 percent of all men) in these cones and functions; only 123 women (36.2 percent of all women) were assigned to these cones and function. The administrative and consular cones are less desirable because they have only 33 FSO-1s assigned to them. This is only 12.4 percent of all FSO-1s and thus there is less opportunity for promotion to that rank in those cones. Nevertheless, 63.5 percent of all women (226) are assigned to these cones while only 30 percent of all men (895) were assigned to them. As has been noted above, the situation essentially the same on Decem- ber 31, 1978. Pl. Ex. 13. These figures demonstrate that women are seriously handicapped as to promotions by their cone and function assignments. During the years 1973, 1974, 1975, 1977, and 1978, FSO promotions to the high grades of FSO-1, FSO-2, and FSO-3 were unevenly distributed in favor of the executive, program direction, political and economic/commercial cones and func- tions, where most male FSOs are placed, and to the detriment of the consular and administrative cones where most female FSOs serve. This discriminatory dis- tribution of promotions is apparent in the following tables (Sources: Depart- ment of State Newsletter, June 1974 and March 1975; M/EEO, 1977 and 1978 FSO Promotions By Sex. 2/77, 4/78, Pl. Ex. 6). PROMOTIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE, PROGRAM DIRECTION, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC/COMMERCIAL CONES AND FUNCTIONS, ]By percent of all promotions to the class] FSO-1----------------------------------------- 73.0 93.3 84.7 88.0 90.0 FSO-2----------------------------------------- 72.6 88.9 79.5 81.5 71.4 FSO-3----------------------------------------- 71.9 81.5 68.1 77.6 76.0 PROMOTIONS IN THE CONSULAR AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONES . ]By percent of all promotions to the class] 0 1----------------------------------------- 27.0 6.7 15.3 12.0 10.0 0-2----------------------------------------- 27.4 11.1 19.3 18.6 23.8 0-3---------------------------------------- 28.1 18.5 30.2 21.0 24.0 , The figures for 1973 and 1974 are based on materials which did not distinguish executive and program direction omotions. 2 Plaintiffs have not been able to obtain figures for 1976. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Since, as we have seen, women are disproportionately placed in the consular and administrative cones, these figures again demonstrate that women are seriously harmed by their cone and function assignments. Analysis of male and female officers by rank further demonstrates the dis- crimination in promotions. It remains a fact that a far higher proportion of men than women have reached the higher grades. As we have noted before, as of June 1974, 2.6 percent of the women and 6.8 percent of the men were FSO-1; in 1975, the figures were 2.9 percent of the women and 8.5 percent of the men ; and in 1976, the women and men were 3.2 percent and 9.6 percent of the FSO-1 officers respectively. As of January 31, 1979, 2.4 percent of women were FSO-1s while 8.6 percent of men were in that grade. For 1974 through 1976, the per- centages of women and men who were FSO-2s were 2.2 percent/11 percent, 2.2 percent/10.2 percent, 2.4 percent/9.5 percent. As of January 31, 1979, the percentages were 1.8 and 10.0, respectively. In grade FSO-3, during the years 1974-76, the percentage of women and men were 12.1 percent/19.2 percent, 9.3 percent/19.5 percent and 10.5 percent/21.7 percent. As of January 31, 1979, the figures for FSO-3s were 11.5 percent of women and 21.3 percent of men. Department of State, M/EEO, Department of State Comparison of Status of Women Employees-By Grades and Pay Plans as of 12/31/74 and 12/31/75, p. 3 (March 1976) ; Department of State, M/EEO, Department of State Com- parison of Status of Women Employees-By Grades and Pay Plans as of 12/31/75 and 12/31/76, p. 3 (March 1977) ; Table from p. 16. Thus, the proportion of women in each of these high grades has actually declined since 1974. As of 1974, 38 percent of the men had attained class 3 or higher and 16.9 per- cent of the women had done so. The most recent data, as of January 31, 1979, show that 39.9 percent of men were in grades FSO-1 through FSO-3 while only 15.7 percent of women held those ranks. Thus, again the disparities ac- tually increased. The distribution of male and female Foreign Service officers within each cone also shows that the women are disproportionately in the lower grades. For instance, in the political cone, as of June 1974, 34.4 percent of the men and only 17 percent of the women were in classes 1 through 3. In contrast, 66.1 per- cent of the women and only 34.1 percent of the men were in classes 5 through 7. Department of State, M/WA, Women FSO's by Cone as of 6/30/74. As of January 31, 1979, 40.5 percent of the men in the political cone were in classes 1 through 3 while only 15.0 percent of women in the political cone were in those classes. Classes 5 through 7 had only 32.6 percent of the men but had. 48.5 percent of the women. 3. ASSIGNMENT TO KEY POSITIONS We have previously shown a pattern of assigning women to the least critical. positions available to individuals at that level and to the least important as.. signments within a particular job category. February 17, 1978, Mem., p. 13. This pattern continues. For instance, as of November 1978, there were only four career female FSOs who were ambassadors and none of them were assigned. to Class I missions. Instead they held ambassadorships to Surinam, Mali and Papua, New Guinea (three of the smallest, and least important embassies) and Finland. Department of State, M/EEO, Some Women in Key Positions (Novem.. her 1978), Pl. Ex. 7. Women principal officers (in charge of subordinate posts within a country) are located in Cebu, Izmir, Zanzibar, Monterrey, Mazatlan and Perth. Ibid. None 'of these .cities are major posts and most people would be hard-pressed to locate them on a map of the world. Women Deputy Chiefs of Mission are located in. Suva and Wellington, two obscure and insignificant posts. Ibid. Women are counselors of Embassy (in charge of a section) in only three posts. Ibid. In the United States, ten upper echelon women are assigned to administrative jobs and two have jobs in the consular cone. Ibid. As we have seen above, these are the least desirable areas of the Department. Only six women have high-ranking jobs in the political area and only one has a high-ranking position, in the Bureau. of Economic Affairs, Ibid. 4. APPOINTMENT TO MIDDLE-LEVEL POSITIONS The Middle-Level hiring program is supposed to be an affirmative action pro- gram for women and members of the minority groups. It brings people in ae reserve officers in classes 3, 4, and 5. Even within this program, however, women. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 are not receiving equal treatment with men in that, as a group, they are being hired at lower ranks and at lower "steps" (pay levels) within ranks. As of January 1, 1979, 82.6 percent (23) of all women hired in the Middle-Level pro- grain came into the Foreign Service at the class 5 level. Only 13 percent (3) came in as class 4 officers and only 4.3 percent (1) was in class 3. In contrast 53 per- cent (8) of the men were hired for class 5 while 40 percent (6) came into class 4 and 6.6 (1) was a male class three officer. Therefore, although the program is intended to improve the balance of women as compared to men in the mid-grades, in fact it is increasing the imbalance because women are being hired in dispro- portionate numbers at the lowest grades, compared to the men being being appointed. M/EEO, Middle Level Hires as of 8/15/78 and 1/1/79, Pl. Ex. 8. There is also a significant difference between women and men in the step level within each grade. Of the 19 women hired as FSR-5, 63 percent were hired at FSR-5/4 or below. The same pattern is repeated in the hiring of FSR-4. 100 percent of the women were hired at FSR-4/4 or below, whereas only 33 percent of the men were hired at FSR-4/4 or below. Ibid. ADDITIONAL CURRENT EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC SEX DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Both the Department of State itself and the Justice Department Task Force on Sex Discrimination in the Federal Government have found important aspects of systemic sex discrimination in the Department. 1. FAILURE TO ACCORD WOMEN EQUAL PROFESSIONAL STATURE A survey of overseas posts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Office of the Department of State found that female officers in some cases did not even attend country team or staff meetings, were kept poorly informed about activities and issues, and were only rarely included. in policy-making. Department of State Newsletter, October 1978, pp. 23-24, Pl. Ex. 9. The Justice Department Task Force noted that "the participation of women as official delegates [to international con- ferences] remains very low," that "women professionals are often given less substantive work than are male counterparts," and that "[w]omen generally have less private office space than men." Interim Report to the President by the Task Force on Sex Discrimination, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, October 3,1978, Pl. Ex. 10, pp. 245, 150. 2. FAILURE TO ASSIGN WOMEN IN A NON-DISCRIMINATORY MANNER The Justice. Department Task Force stated that "the Department continues to fail to assign women to certain, countries as a result of traditions and cul- tures of the receiving country." Pl. Ex. 10, p. 242. It also noted that this violates a Presidential Memorandum that all overseas assignments are to be made in a non-discriminatory manner. Ibid. The Director of Equal Employment Opportunity for the Department, Under Secretary of State for Management Ben H. Read, has acknowledged publicly that the Department has been failing in its efforts to bring representative num- bers of women into the FSO corps. Speaking at the Department's "Open Forum," he said (Department of State Newsletter, March 1978, p. 57, Pl. Ex. 11) : It showed * * * the percentage of women up to 9 percent * * * [an increase of] 3 percent, in an entire decade. The mid-level affirmative action program to which you refer, was instituted in 1975, [with] a goal of 20-10 minority, 10 women-in each year. The grand total of 17 had been taken in by the end of the last fiscal year and, as of then and as of today, there has not been one conversion [from reserve to FSO status] from that group. * * * The * * * comparison is very, very modest * * It should be noted that in 1959 and 1960 9 percent of all FSOs were women. M/EEO Women Foreign Service Officers (FSO), Twenty-Year Study, 2/78, P1. Ex. 12. Thus, all that the Department has accomplished is to get back to the level which had been achieved in those years. As Mr. Read tacitly acknowledges, this hardly corrects the discrimination which women have suffered. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 CONCLUSION For the reason stated above, the accompanying evidence, and the memoranda of August 24, 1976, February 17, 1978, and July 7, 1978, we respectfully sub- mit that Plaintiffs' Motions for Orders Certifying these suits as Class Actions should be granted and that the class certified should consist of all present and future female Foreign Service Officers and applicants. BRUCE J. TERRIs, DELMAR KARLEN, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Mrs. KING. Before going to the chart I want to draw some distinc- tions between the personnel systems of the Foreign Service and the civil service. In the former, there are eight Foreign Service officer grades plus Career Minister going from the bottom, an FSO-8 to the top, an FSO-1. Career Minister. We do not have any women career ministers. Second, unlike the civil service, Foreign Service personnel are not hired for a specific position in which they may hope to move up to increasing responsibility. Foreign Service officers are considered gen- eralists. They are given certain specialties or functions and periodic assignments, usually within that broad specialty. To go back to the chart, it tilts south by west; most women are in junior grades, FSO-8 to 5. There is a dearth of women in the senior grades. Only 2.4 percent of all women FSO's are at the FSO-1 level and 1.8 percent are at the FSO-2 level. For purposes of camparison, those percentages for men FSO's are 8.6 percent and 10 percent, respectively. I wish I could say that we are doing at least better than before. That is not true. The percentage of women is actually decreasing in the top grades as detailed on pages 19 and 20 of the attached brief. I would be glad to explain that later if you like. The chart also shows that women have been placed in career cate- gories, specialties or functions, where the opportunities for advance- ment are severely limited. Senior grades are concentrated in the executive, program management, political and economic/commercial functions. Where are all the women found? The relationship between function and promotion is analyzed on pages 17 and 18 of the attached. There appears to be no rational, performance-related reasons for such concentrations based on sex. Until there is a more equal distribu- tion, women cannot hope to advance to the top in comparable per- centages with their male colleagues nor can management be assured that they are getting the best personnel at the highest level of our career service. Key to advancement is assignments, made for each officer on the average of every 2 years. It is the way you gain additional experience and responsibility, learning how to deal with the varied and complex aspects of our foreign relations, to negotiate, represent, and develop policy on behalf of your country. Yet the assignment process is over- whelmingly in the hands of men where the "old boy" network per- petuates the selection of a few for the best positions without requiring open competition among all qualified candidates. In competing for assignments women candidates face several road- blocks, obstacles that exist largely in the minds of the men and the few women making personnel decisions. Women are not given supervisory Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 positions generally; they fail to recognize the leadership qualities in women and often presume men do not like being supervised by women. Stereotypes about what kind of work is appropriate or natural to women limit their assignment choices. Let me give you some examples. Women are seen as personnel or consular officers but not as labor or political-military officers. Such stereotypes ignore individual qualifi- cations and limit assignments for women. Gallant but old-fashioned assignment officers are often reluctant to assign women officers to hardship or hazardous posts. Women took the same oath of office and expect to take their fair share of such duty. Such assignments can often be career advancing. It is this same old- fashioned attitude that makes assignment officers believe that women officers cannot be effective in countries where local law and/or custom accord low status to their women. The problem I assert, is in the minds of American personnel officers rather than in the minds of other diplo- mats and host country officials. Women have served with excellence in every part of the globe in- cluding the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. My per- sonal experience has been that the prestige of the U.S. diplomatic corps is universal and that personal competence and skills, not sex, are the basic criteria for success as a diplomat as in any other career. The effect of such bias in assignments has been to limit the opportu- nities for women and to fail to use efficiently the resources of the For- eign Service. A study by my organization in 1975 showed that of all senior For- eign Service career women officers in all pay plans, 43 percent were serving in positions at least one grade beneath their personal rank. This is most graphically illustrated by career ambassadorial assign- ments. Not only are women chiefs of mission few and far between, cur- rently six career women are such, but they are appointed to those countries to which we assign the lowest level of priority and impor- tance in U.S. foreign relations. That is explained in detail on page 20 of the attached. We have four classes of posts, class I is the highest and class IV is the bottom. I do not know if there has ever been a career woman officer assigned to a class I post and I think most of them have been class IV posts in our entire 200-year history. There are other officer categories in the Foreign Service. The reserve limited and unlimited officer categories and Foreign Service Staff officers face the same stereotypes by personnel officers that limit wom- en's entry, assignments, and promotions in disregard of their indi- vidual qualifications and potential. Most women in the Foreign Service are secretaries at the staff or support level below the officer grades. The president of the American Foreign Service Association, Lars Hydal, mentioned these problems on July 9. We agree that they are deprived of appropriate professional status, adequate pay including compensation for long overtime and standby duty and that they are unfairly hit by local duties and taxes their higher salaried officer colleagues are exempt from. We support his call for priority negotiations by the Secretary to protect noncommissioned employees from such local duties and taxes and for increased funds to insure appropriate language and area train- ing for staff personnel. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 In addition to these problems related to the secretarial profession, Staff Corps women are also disadvantaged in comparison with their male colleagues. In promotions in 1977, 67 percent of all Staff Corps women were eligible for promotion against 33 percent for men; yet their promotions were only 11.6 percent compared to 16 percent for men. In part, this is because men are concentrated in staff functions that have higher career ceilings than women. Women have difficulty breaking into those functions. Again, a problem of concentration in certain functions. There is a large segment of the Department of State work force that is civil service. While we are here to address an act titled and al- most entirely concerned with the Foreign Service, in State the civil service is a little over one-third the size of the Foreign Service, 3,632 versus 9,161. The civil service component at State has historically been neglected. That was the finding of a 1975 Civil Service Commission study, "Per- sonnel Management in the Department of State," which went on to say that -"performance evaluation and training of civil service em- ployees is ineffective, lacks adequate planning and followthrough and fails to meet even minimum requirements." It also said that "pro- motion program administration fails to meet even basic and minimal merit system requirements, causing serious violations and providing no assurance to management that the best qualified are selected and no assurance to the employees that they are being equitably considered." Civil service women are overwhelmingly at the bottom of the ladder, only 6 percent of all civil service women employees at State are at the senior and the middle levels, 43 percent are GS-7 through 11 and 51 percent are GS-6 and below. Because of the slow pace of progress, in 1976 we decided that it was necessary to seek justice by going outside of the Department. We had until then prided ourselves that we worked with management for reform from within. We joined in support of a class action suit charging systemic dis- crimination by the Department against women FSO's. After almost 3 years, that and a parallel suit have just been certified for class action last month. The Department has failed to respond to the issues and sought endless delays. We must in honesty look at this situation from a historical per- spective. So long as women had to be single as a condition of employ- ment in the Foreign Service, this was not going to be an attractive career. Women employees' position today is the accumulated result of many years of discrimination that cannot be overturned at once. We believe that we must begin by ending current practices of discrimination and locating skills and resources that are now underutilized and take affirmative action to place those resources where we need them to get the job done. For many years affirmative action plans have been time consuming but largely ineffectual exercises. The Department paid only lipservice to equal opportunity. Senior leaders made pronouncements that were ignored in practice. Secretary Vance made a new attempt when he came aboard and formed an executive level task force on affirmative action. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 The Women's Action Organization provided studies and suggested remedies. Although not as specific or effective as we had hoped, we joined with several employee groups representing minorities in sup- port of the task force recommendations. Those were emasculated along the road when they were turned over to the career ranks to translate into specific plans of action. Let me say that there were two areas in the affirmative action plan as it made its way down into the plans for implementation that were progress of some sort. On the civil service side, they started an upward mobility program for lower level civil service employees, GS-7 and below. They strengthened a merit promotion system that they had begun several years earlier. Those are two things on the civil service side that came through that plan. On the Foreign Service side, the only part that we would really consider affirmative action was support for the special EEO hiring programs that brought in 20 at the junior level and 20 at the middle level without having to go through the written examination process. The reason why the goals and recommendations that the Secretary had supported did not make it through the bureaucracy is, I believe, that those in the career service who believe in those stereotypes and do not realize that their gallantry is a form of discrimination were unlikely to come up with recommendations and relevant affirmative actions that would address the special problems of women and minor- ities. Even the surviving recommendations of modest effect were attacked and challenged by our own professional association, AFSA. This is a bleak picture indeed and it is no better for minorities at State. I wish I could tell, you that the Department is moving toward becoming an equal opportunity employer. As you can see from my prepared text, it is not. I do not mean to imply that there has been no progress, but the progress is so slow that even if maintained for 10 years at an acceler- ated pace, it would still leave the Foreign Service unrepresentative. They are bringing in more women officers, 16 percent per year. How long would it take you to bring in 100 percent per year to come up with something that begins to be reflective of the percentage of women in the work force and women in American society in similar kinds of responsibilities? I do want to record our appreciation for Secretary Vance's per- sonal attention and leadership in awakening in State some realiza- tion that the present distribution of rewards and responsibilities reflects a bong history of bias and Assistant Secretary Moose's wise leadership of the original affirmative action task force. It should be clear from the above that the Department on its own is unable or unwilling to carry out the goals mentioned in the first chapter of the proposed act, to be representative of the American people, to insure merit principles for selection and advancement and equal opportunity in all aspects of employment. The Office of Eoual Employment Opportunity is not mentioned in the bill. Its mandate needs to be strengthened. More than that, equal opportunity in all aspects of employment must be required under the law you are now considering. For that purpose we propose the following changes. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Section 301 under "General Requirements of Appointment," part (b) should add "equal opportunity" following "merit" to read "in accordance with the merit and equal opportunity principles." Ip section 511, "Assignments to Foreign Service Positions," part (a), add "and equal opportunity" following "merit" so that it would read "in accordance with merit and equal opportunity principles." In section 601, "Promotions Based on Merit," part (a), add "and equal opportunity" following "merit" to read "shall be based on merit and equal opportunity principles." Let me divert from my prepared speech to tell you one of the rea- sons why this emphasis is terribly important and more important than I understood when I wrote my testimony. The American Foreign Service Association has asserted that the Department is exempt from existing EEO laws and regulations and particularly the Executive order relating to affirmative action. As AFSA's testimony has made evident to you, they have argued repeat- edly that equal employment opportunity is somehow distinct from or even opposite to merit principles. We opposed their proposed amendment to section 101 (a) (3) that would add "members of the Foreign Service." AFSA's comments on section 101(b) (2) are obviously meant to prohibit affirmative action. This would be contrary to the merit principles of section V, section 2302(d) of title V of the United States Code which says nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent affirmative action. In order to clarify the law's intent, section 102(7) under "Defini- tions" regarding merit principles, should identify not only section 2301 but also section 2302 of title V. It is the latter section which prohibits discrimination and protects affirmative action. I don't know why the Department's proposed text cites only section 2301. Why not section 2302 also? I do not know. Or there should be a new section in the law that specifies that noth- ing in this act is intended to rescind or supersede any existing law or regulation with regard to equal employment opportunity. As long as our professional association is saying that the Foreign Service is not covered by any statute, that it is not bound by any Executive order on any regulations or equal employment in the Department of State or Foreign Service, I think we need to do something about that. In order to insure oversight and implementation of this respon- sibility for the Department as a whole, it is proposed that the Inspector General's responsibilities should include an examination of whether merit and equal opportunity principles have been observed in the man- agement of the Department and missions abroad. That would be added to section 205 (a). The act calls for maximum compatibility among the personnel sys- tems of State, AID, and ICA. I regret to assure you that women For- eign Service employees of those agencies also face discrimination in all aspects of employment. AID lags behind both State and ICA in the proportion of women in the senior ranks. In AID, women are generally absent from policy positions and from midlevel positions with significant program and policy roles; entering junior officer classes have included few women Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 255 and AID does not provide adequate opportunities for low- and mid- level women with needed skills, interest, and potential to advance. That is to say AID has a need for certain categories of employees such as sociologists. They have employees who are secretaries who have de- grees in those subjects and they are not using them. Mr. FASCEL.L. It sounds like the Army. Mrs. KING. There you go. In recent years the position of Foreign Service career women has deteriorated within AID while the civil service women have remained stationary. It is with considerable misgivings that women in AID con- template a change in the Agency's personnel system toward one more heavily staffed under Foreign Service than under the civil service rules. In ICA, the percentage of women Foreign Service information offi- cers, FSIO's is 16 percent. That is slightly better than the comparable figure for State which was 10 percent. They are concentrated in the cultural rather than informational functions. There is the now famil- iar dearth of women in the senior grades, policy, and managerial positions and there is discrimination in assignments to certain geo- graphical regions. Women in the civil service are clustered in the lower ranks and in certain sex-stereotyped functions. ICA Foreign Service secretaries have many of the same problems as their State counterparts. 'This sit- uation has not changed basically in the past 2 years except slightly downward for a decrease in the intake of women as junior officers and in women civil service officers at the middle level. Given the familiar pattern of discrimination and lack of progress toward equality of opportunity, we suggest that the Board of the Foreign Service with an interagency mandate for Foreign Service personnel include "in its responsibilities the promotion of personnel policies and practices based on merit and equal opportunity principles. That is section 206. While we support a strong professional association to represent em- ployees' concerns, we have often found AFSA unsympathetic to the concerns of women officers and spouses. We understand their feelings against what has been called "reverse discrimination" and believe steps taken in the name of affirmative action in other places have some- times been foolish. We believe the Women's Action Organization has been responsive to these fears and have proposed remedial actions that would generally open up competition so that women and minorities could compete on the basis of merit. So long as AFSA's membership is preponderantly white males, we will continue to have misgivings about its willingness to represent our interests. For the moment, we have no proposed changes to suggest in the proposed act relating to labor-management relations but are studying them to insure that our rights are protected. We will do that study in August and will get back to you in September. Before I conclude, let me say something on behalf of Foreign Serv- ice family members. We sponsored the soouses' skills bank because we support the employment abroad of spouses and believe that the Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Department is the loser when it fails to recognize spouses as potential employees and is being just arbitrary and unjust when it places ob- stacles in the way of their employment outside of the mission. We worked alongside the American Association of Foreign Service Women for the creation of the Family Liaison Office in the belief that information and counseling was essential for our Foreign Service families. We, along with the American Association of Foreign Service Women, AFSA and a group representing the support staff are actively examining the problem mentioned by the AFSA president concerning Staff Corps perception that training and assignment benefits recently promoted for family members adversely affect Staff employee's op- portunities. We do know that there is a regular cadre of qualified spouses who take their skills and desire for employment from post to post around the world. They serve with limited appointments and save the Govern- ment transportation and housing costs. Others serve in part-time, in- termittent and temporary-called PIT-positions to fill in during periods of peak workloads. Such employees have met American stand- ards of job qualification and should not be expected to accept local standards of pay as described in section 333 (a) and 451(a) (1). I be- lieve this latter section is one with which you will be discussing with Mr. Read later this morning. The women and men who have joined and supported the Women's Action Organization have done so because of their commitment to equal opportunity and their concern about being able to sustain a happy, healthy family life despite the disruptions and difficulties of our mobile occupation. I appreciate the time you have given today to consider the conditions of employment for women in the Department of State and our sister agencies and of the concerns and resources of family members of the Foreign Service. We hope you will see to it that equal employment opportunity is more firmly captured in your bill. I also request to submit for the record two letters which we have sent to our employees, one of October 25, 1978, which describes the affirmative action plan of the Department of State and our comments on about six sections-I think there were 10 sections totally. The sec- ond letter of May 1979 relates to the class action suit and explains what the grievance is and what the remedy requested is and the progress. Mr. FASCELL. Without objection, the two letters referred to will be included in the record. [The letters referred to follow:] WOMEN'S ACTION ORGANIZATION, Dial/ 1979. Situation Report : Class Action suit on Behalf of Women FSOs. DEAR WAO MEMBERS AND FRIENDS : The wheels of justice turn incredibly slowly. We are still waiting for the hearing on a "class action" certification in the U.S. District Court for D.C. for the two parallel suits (now consolidated) charging discrimination by the Department on the basis of sex. It is now almost three years since the original EEO complaint was filed. Briefly, the cases charge that the effect of the Department's personnel system is to discriminate against women FSO's in recruitment, selection, appointment. assignment, evaluation, promotion, training, awards, selection-out, etc. This is Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 based on the statistics, going back over ten years, that show that women as a group, in comparison with men, are disadvantaged. For example, fewer women than men are recruited for the FSO exam ; fewer are passed ; more are assigned to the consular, personnel, budget and fiscal functions (where the number of jobs above 0-3 is miniscule) ; and fewer are assigned to certain regions, certain functions or supervisory positions generally. In the top ranks and in most career-advancing jobs, they are woefully underrepresented. This demonstrates clearly that there is a pattern of practices and policies that are unfair to women. The suits are brought as a "class action" because the systemic unfairness falls on women as a group. It is not based on individual complaints or specific per- sonnel actions, although some can be given to illustrate the case. It does not af- fect your right to file a grievance or complaint regarding a specific action that happened to you personally. The two suits attack the Department's personnel system rather than particular individuals. In broad terms they ask that: (1) a court determination be made that women FSO's have suffered from systemic discrimination; (2) the Depart- ment be enjoined from continuing personnel policies and practices which discrim- inate against women; (3) a court order be issued setting forth specific correc- tive measures (affirmative actions) to eliminate and prevent discrimination; and (4) where appropriate, women FSO's be granted remedial action, such as retroactive promotions and accompanying back pay in those cases in which they would have been entitled to such promotions if the system had not discriminated against them. In our most recent letter (October 25, 1978) we described the current status of the Department's Affirmative Action Plan. While it contains some modest pro- posals for the Civil Service, it fails to address the problems of discrimination in Foreign Service assignments, counselling, promotions, training, etc., nor ,to make meaningful recommendations that would permit women to compete equally with men. Even if it were totally implemented, as is, it would not significantly help women employees. Even so, the most important aspects of the Plan are being opposed by AFSA. Obviously, we must continue to pursue the court case if any effective change is to come about. In the winter and spring of 1977/78, WAO urged the Department to consider negotiating a settlement of the suit. At that time, although the Affirmative Ac- tion Task Force recommendations were still merely statements of general goals, without concrete substance, we felt that there was some possibility of progress through negotiations. The Department was slow and vague in its response. The plaintiffs in the suits continued their attempts to find a reasonable basis for settling the suits through negotiations between July 1978 and January 1979. Plaintiff's lawyers met with representatives of the Department and presented specific proposals. However, they were never given a substantive response and the Department used the negotiations as a basis for delaying the law suits in the court. For these two reasons, the plaintiffs ended negotiations in January. As you can see, since our last letter on the suits to you (December 1977) there has been a lot of to-ings and fro-ings but little progress. Lawyers for the plaintiffs submitted their motion for class certification in the two cases on February 17, 1978. Briefings on the motion for both plaintiffs and defendant were completed on July 7 and the case was then ready for oral argument. On November 1 there was a status conference of the lawyers before Judge Smith. At the request of the Department oral arguments were postponed until Janu- ary 30, 1979, when the Department requested postponement for a further time to submit additional documents. Plaintiffs filed an additional memorandum with supporting documents on April 17, 1979, in response to the affidavits filed by the Department in March. In all this time, the court has not heard nor passed on the substance of the suit. We are still fighting over technical details as to whether women FSO's are to be considered as a group (the "class" certification). The reasons for the delay are only incidentally the result of legal niceties. More important has been the continuing lack of response from the Department-either as a deliberate attempt to delay in. order to avoid the issues and discourage the plaintiffs, or the result of lack of attention to the suit by Department officials, or both. As of April 1979, legal costs to the plaintiffs were over $36,000 (recoverable should the suit succeed) paid largely by Alison Palmer. WAOhas made very modest financial contributions, has gathered and analyzed statistics, developed concrete, illustrations of past discrimination, and prodded management. You Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 can help, if you, will, to improve the career chances for yourself and your women colleagues by contributing money or examples of your experience. The enclosed form may be used for either. We will keep you informed of the checkered progress of the suit. Sincerely, President.. MARGUERITE COOPER KING, Vice President for State. P.S.: It is again time to renew your membership in WAO. Unless you have paid your dues since January 1, 1979, you should fill out the enclosed form and return it with your check. Costs of stationery, printing xeroxing, etc., have shot up and we would appreciate any additional contributions you can make. One check will do, for the WAO legal fund for the suit, for membership, for con- tribution to WAO. Please indicate on the enclosed forms how you would like your check to be divided. Enclosures. WOMEN'S ACTION ORGANIZATION, Situation Report : Department's Affirmative Action Plan. October 25, 1978. DEAR WAO MEMBERS AND FRIENDS : We have been hard at work to put some teeth into the recommendations of the Affirmative Action Task Force. You will recall that the Secretary set up an executive-level Task Force in March, 1977, which came up with some 90 recommendations : half related to increased efforts at recruitment (largely for FSOs) and: half related to other aspects of employ- ment. We concentrated our efforts on this latter half. The recommendations, which received the Secretary's blessing in November 1977, were turned over to an Implementing Working Group under the direction of M/EEO to work out a plan of action. The results, in by March/April 1978, were a mixed bag (see the attached summary). There were some hopeful first steps toward an upward mobility program for lower-level Civil Service em- ployees, some good proposals for a more open, better advertised merit promotion system. On the whole, however, the results were disappointing. We collectively spent some 100 hours in meetings, gathering information, writing, editing, typing, zeroxing and collating a serious and responsible critique which went to M/EEO in June. In July we met with Under Secretary for Management Benjamin Read, to urge that certain high priority and non-controversial actions recommended by the Implementing Working Group be taken at once and that other categories be referred back to a panel for review and refinement. For example, we recom- mended that the Secretary clarify what he meant by affirmative action (remov- ing barriers to genuine equal competition and to commit the Department to seek a proportionate number of women and minorities in all levels, pay plans, region and functional specialties) ; to begin immediately with EEO training for BEX examiners, tenure and commissioning boards, promotion panels and inspectors ; to give expanded PER resources to upward mobility and merit promotion pro- grams for the Civil Servicte. At the same time we rejected other broad categories of recommendations as failing to meet the minimum standards of an "affirmative action" program. "Af- firmative action" is designed to identify and address the special problems that women and minorities face that prevent them from competing equally on the basis of merit. For example, sex role stereotyping which results in women being placed as clerks and secretaries instead of communicators ; as consular officers instead of political officers. But, the recommendations on career recounseling, for example, apply across the board for all employees (focused on FSOs, natch!), with only a passing reference to EEO. Affirmative action also implies attempts to increase the proportion of women and minorities in all areas and levels where they are underrepresented. This does not mean taking unqualified women, but making special efforts to consider or search out qualified ones. In this sense, the recom- mendations on assignments, promotions,' etc., lacked "affirmative action." Those on recruitment and training were merely misdirected. I regret to report that Deputy Assistant Secretary Burroughs (EEO) and Under Secretary Read (Dl) gave us no reason to believe that the Department Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 will move quickly on the non-controversial aspect nor recommit for review the recommendations we opposed. AFSA President Lars Hydal conceded, at that July meeting, that while isolated incidents of discrimination do exist in the Depart- ment, he believes that women and minorities are .not systematically discriminated against or disadvantaged by the system. From this and other encounters we are convinced that AFSA will not support affirmative action on the grounds that its meaning is unclear and is suspect as constituting "reverse discrimination". So, friends, the way is dark and uphill every inch. And, we are in there battling. The Secretary's speech on EEO at the WAO awards ceremony in Sep- tember was positive : certainly better than the wishy-washy recommendations of the Implementing Working Group. That was good. The Department's modest G.S. upward mobility program seems to be moving ahead on schedule, although we are uncertain of the impact on it of the freeze on hiring. Attached is a brief summary of the recommendations of the Implementing Working Group on an Affirmative Action Proposal for the Department. Should you like a copy of our consolidated report to Ben Read, including our comments and recommendations on the 90-odd proposals (70 pages), send us $2.00 for copying expenses along with the form below. We have indicated in the space below whether your dues are current. If not, please see the separate form for renewal, with fee schedule, below. Sincerely, Your dues are/are not current. SUMMARY AND COMMENTS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROPOSALS OF THE SECRETARY'S EXECUTIVE-LEVEL TASK FORCE AS REVISED AND ENLARGED BY THE IMPLEMENTING WORKING GROUP ? ? I. UPWARD MOBILITY A. Civil Service.-A new upward mobility program coordinator is to begin operation, by November 1978-February 1979, of a program for GS-7 and below based on designated positions and candidate selection (Recommendation No. 50). WAO oomment.-It is right to focus on this level: 51 percent of all women and minority employees are in this group. Progress is slow, however, and the outlines of the program are still vague. We want the program accelerated and other programs for higher level GS employees instituted (see Training, Merit Promotion). B. Foreign Service.-For the Mustang program : will revise qualifications to include credit for self-improvement, provide traveling panels for Mustang can, didates (to become FSOs) (No. 51). Proposed a new program for support level employees of all plans to move into new areas of specialty (No. 52). WAO comment.-Entry qualifications for Mustang candidates are still too high. The two programs should be amalgamated and developed into one which permits employees to acquire new specialties and move up, within support level as well as into the officer level. II. ASSIGNMENTS (F.S.) /MERIT PROMOTION (0.S.) A. Foreign Service-The Task Force had recommended that the Department "encourage consideration of employees in EEO categories for all vacancies, giv- ing them favorable consideration when deemed competitive" (No. 66). The Im- plementing Working Group changed this (and other similar recommendations) to "assure that EEO category personnel are equitably considered.. ." WAO comment.-The specific implementing steps recommended failed to ad- dress the problem of sex-stereotyping in jobs. Additionally, the Working Group failed to bite the bullet and recommend that the underrepresentation of women and minorities in certain areas be a favorable factor in choosing between qualified candidates. EEO goals should, we feel, be given the same kind of consideration now given to other non-performance related "needs of the Service," e.g., the requirement of officers to spend a certain proportion of their careers in Washing- ton and oversas, the development of area and language expertise. WAO also recommended that FSRs and FSRUs should he considered for FS designated Positions and used before permitting outside hire. B. Civil Service.-Instructions to Merit Promotion panels should stress affirma- tive action ... (No. 71) ; make certain, where possible, that lists of best qualified Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 MARGUERITE COOPER KING, Vice President for State. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 candidates . include persons in EEO categories . . . ; and greater publicity should be given to the Merit Promotion system, how it works and vacancy notices; develop individualized career counseling for the Civil Service (No. 75). WAO comment.-Improvements are required so that G.S.-7s and above, not covered by the G.S. upward mobility program, are given a chance to advance commensurate with their skills and potential. The Implementing Working Group recommendations were relevant and he:pful. Additionally, position requirements should be written in such a way as to permit the widest possible competition and FSI or off-site training provided where it would qualify an employee for a vacancy. III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (U.S. AND F.S.)/PROMOTION (F.S.) A. Performance Evaluation.-All evaluation reports should comment on con- tributions to EEO (No. 76), record EEO training (No. 77) and give full rather than cursory evaluatoins for all employees in "dead-end" positions (No. 78). Ensure that EEO-category employees are given equal consideration in assessing potential for future assignments (No. ? 79). The Working Group added to the Task Force recommendations by proposing that consistent guidance be given selection boards and the Commissioning and Tenure Board (No. 79A). WAO comment.-We support these proposals. They correctly identified the problems of underutilization of low expectation related to sex-role bias as well as the unreasonable criteria being applied to Mustang and lateral entrant candidates. B. Promotion (F.S.: see II.B above for G.S.).-Revise F.S. precepts to ensure that they stress affirmative action (No. 70) appoint women and minorities to selection boards (No. 73). WAO comment.-Panel precepts should charge members with identifying and discounting bias when it appears in reports by supervisors and inspectors. We also believe that it is fair to ask panel members, when having to choose the rank order among equally qualified employees, to give particular consideration to women and minority employees who have previously been disadvantaged because of bias un- related to their job performance. IV. TRAINING AND COUNSELING (G.S.-F.S.) A. Training.-Implement comprehensive programs of training for G.S. em- ployees (No. 53), supervisors should encourage subordinates to take appropriate short-term training (No. 54). Improve training opportunities such as language, area, administrative, etc., for "certain groups such as secretaries and com- municators and long term training for consular officers." WAO comment.-These are important advances in principle for G.S. employees. They need to be monitored to ensure that they are adequately made a part of counseling and merit promotion programs. The recommendations for language and area training misses the boat re: women's special concerns. These are the failure : to view young women as serious professionals ("they will soon get married and leave"); to provide adequate or career advancing administra- tive and consular officers ; or to recognize the leadership potential of women calling for long-term or senior training. B. Counseling.-Proposed that counselors without professional training in counseling be given that training; counselors should spend more time on coun- seling rather than placement (No. 8). A program should be designed to identify and help "troubled" employees (No. 60). Comment.-The recommendations have no particular EEO focus nor do they propose "affirmative action." They fail to address the special problems of women and minorities through stereotyping and low expectation. Biased advice by coun- selors only reinforces their disadvantages by perpetuating their low self-esteem. Nor did they recommend an improvement in the ratio of counselors to employees which are grossly inadequate for all except junior and mid-level FSOs. V. OTHERS Lack of time and resources prevented WAO from commenting on other Work- ing Group proposals covering orientation, position descriptions, and EEO train- ing. We have not included here our critiques of proposals on recruitment, image and publicity, and selection and hiring (which focused on FSOs). Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much, Mrs. King, for a very damaging piece of testimony. Let me see if I understand. Other than statutory changes which you suggested with respect to equal opportunity language and the reserva- tion with respect to labor/management, there are no other specific leg- islative matters that you are concerned with? Mrs. KING. The reason why we have not come out on specific aspects is because women are found in all functions and you often have a conflict of interest. There will be officers and secretaries in the Foreign Service and civil service whom we represent. We were unable there- fore as an organization to comment on other substantive parts of the law. We merely ask that it be equally enforced. Mr. FASCELL. That the law be equally applicable? I have never heard anybody else say anything otherwise. If they have, they do not know what they are talking about. This intrigues me. Is there some relationship between this organiza- tion and other organizations? Just exactly what are you talking about? Why can you not comment on whatever you want to comment on? Mrs. KING. We could, but if you know anything about the women's movement, about the only thing which unites them is they do not want to be discriminated against. Mr. FASCELL. That sounds like men. What does that have to do with it? Mrs. KING. That is the reason why as long as we are here represent- ing the Women's Action Organization, that is the only part that is appropriate for me to address. Mr. FASCELL. Are you in the Foreign Service? Mrs. KING. I entered the Foreign Service through the written ex- ar:iination in 1956. Mr. FASCELL. I was just curious about the reservation you placed upon yourself as an individual. I do not understand but it is all right with me. Mrs. KING. I am representing my organization. If you would like my personal views, I would be glad to give them to you. If you want the views of my organization, I think it is proper for us to stick to that. Mr. FASCELL. Let's talk about this organization. Tell me about it so I will understand exactly whose view we have. Mrs. KING. We represent Foreign Service and civil service. Mr. FASCELL. All Government employees? Mrs. KING. In State, AID, and USICA. Mr. FASCELL. Men and women? Mrs. KING. Men and women and their spouses. That is officers and secretaries. Mr. FASCELL. No one outside the agencies? Mrs. KING. No, unless they are retired. Only a few continue to be interested. Mr. FASCELL. Except for the fact that you are a separate organiza- tion, what is your relation to AFSA? Mrs. KING. We formed in 1970 as did the blacks and hispanics and the Asian Americans. Those are the minority groups I know about and there may be others. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. You all have separate organizations? Mrs. KING. Yes. We organized on behalf of equal opportunity for women in about 1970 and you will be speaking to the Thursday lunch- eon group which represents the blacks on the 31st. One of the reasons why we did so' was because very frankly we were not being adequately represented by the American Foreign Service As- sociation. I do not know how representative that organization is of cur- rent employees. I do not know how many of its members are retired members. Mr. FASCELL. Is that a good question to ask without asking yourself the same question? Mrs. KING. I can tell you. We have three retired members. Mr. FASCELL. I am talking about representatives of the community, whatever that community happens to be. I do not know that it is valid but it certainly is the guts of the case as far as women are concerned in the Service. If you are going to apply it to the organization as they come out of that Service, I do not know where you stop. I guess the assumption is that not only is AFSA nonrepresentative in the agency sense as an agent, but nonrepresentative in its character and nonrepresentative in its makeup. I gather that is the assumption. I do not know whether that is a fact or not. It is certainly the assump- tion I am left with because you have so many other organizations who want to go out and have an identification. Mrs. KING. Certainly there has been a lack of response by AFSA and AFSA has not been responsive to special concerns. Mr. FASCELL. I was citing from the response, the fact that they do not go in the right direction or the buttons are not pushed right. I was thinking strictly about the makeup of the organization as not being representative of the community which it is supposed to represent. If there are not enough women in there then it is impossible for that group to be representative any more than it is for your group to be representative since there are not enough women in the group to start with. That is the only point I was making. I do not ignore the politics of the situation in terms of the need for identity. Mrs. KING. I am a member of AFSA and many people within my organization are. I have two members here. One is from AID and one is from USICA. About our representativeness, we are in the midst of our annual membership campaign so I cannot tell you how many members we have because we are in the midst. Mr. FASCELL. As far as I am concerned, it is not even relevant any more than the makeup of AFSA is relevant but if you think it is relevant, it becomes important. Mrs. KING. If the people who vote, if half of their members are retired or one-third of their members are retired and they are operat- ing on ideas that were current and in vogue 30 years ago, that is not going to help us today. Mr. FASCELL. The 18th century. It is not going to help you. It is the old story of political power. Around here as an example, you can do anything if you have the votes. If you do not have the votes you are not going to do anything. You can be eloquent and you can be intelligent. Mrs. KING. You can even be right. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Leach. Mr. LEACH. I can understand that since this side of the table seems to have a monopoly on rightness and not votes. Mr. FASCELL. This side of the table goes in both directions. Mr. LEACH. Let me comment briefly on the cone system. I think anyone who has ever been associated with the Foreign Service has very, very strong opinions. I happen to be convinced that it is damag- ing at the entrance level. So many people feel they have a slightly better chance if they choose a consular or administrative cone; and the Service, when they get locked into the cone concept, wants to choose a given percentage in that direction. This applies particularly to women who may not have as much alleged political background, and particularly the minorities, so you get locked in from the start. Oddly enough, in politics in America, anyone who has ever run for an elected office knows women do all the work and are all the smart politicians. I think it is damaging to promotions in a reverse discriminatory way in the junior ranks and the opposite for the senior ranks. Having once reached the austere rank of an FSO-5 as a political officer, I was told by one promotion board that I would have an immediate promo- tion if I switched to economics and a delayed one for politics. I think that is absolutely wrong. As everyone knows toward the end of the spectrum, political officers get most of the top promotions. There is no reason to put that slant in the system. I think the cone system is devastating to the psychology of officers. What you have in the Foreign Service is a class system to begin with and this makes a caste system within a class system. That is an outrage. I also think it is damaging to training because, as most people who have served overseas know, some of the best initial training is at the consular level or possibly the administrative level. You get locked into a political cone and you are strapped. There is no reason that the Foreign Service should not be far more flexible. I would strongly advise the State Department to dispense with the cone system virtually in its entirety. As I said somewhat facetiously, but I think it is correct, at the last meeting of this hearing, cones should be used by Good Humor men but not Secretaries of State. With that as a prolog, could you comment why in your judgment there seems to be a decreasing number of women at the top levels although an increasing number at the bottom? Mrs. KING. It is the sociological phenomenon as well as historical phenomenon that women in American society entered the work force in positions to which they were previously kept out during the Second World War and immediately after the Second World War. Those women are now approaching involuntary retirement age. I have attempted to get the statistics on the ages of the women in classes I. IT, and III. More than half of them look like they are going to be retired within the next couple of years. That is the sociological reason. Mr. LEACH. If I could interrupt you for a second, we have a vote and we will recess briefly. The chairman is back. Mr. FASCELL. We will be back in a few minutes. The subcommittees recessed for a vote on the floor.] Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. FASCELL. We will continue. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Do you believe the Foreign Service entrance exam itself discrimi- nates against women? Mrs. KING. We know statistically it does. We know it screens out women more rapidly than men. I have some figures with regard to the number of people who actually apply to take the exam, who actually take the exam, who pass the written exam, who take the oral and pass the oral. The statistical difference is 5 to 10 percent. The worst case recently was in 1975 when 14 percent of all men who took it passed and 4 percent of all women who took it passed it. We are not really quite certain why that is so. That is the business of the people who make up the examination to find out why it is so. Recently the Department has changed its system of the oral exami- nation. Instead of having three, largely men, although increasingly women, go out on these panels, drilling you for an hour, you now have an all-day examination. I think there are six applicants in each group being examined. I do not know whether there are three or six examin- ers. They do an in-basket test, a written test, and a little oral. They put them through some work simulation games. Although that only began in January, I am told women are doing much better on that. The problem with the old oral examination is the problem we face in assignments and promotions. It is what women call the problem of invisibility. If I have a qualification and you do not ask me about it, then I never have a chance to let you know. If you already presume that because I am a woman and marriageable, that I will get married and leave and the Department is going to lose all the money it has invested in my training, then you are already in a mind set that dis- courages you from bringing in women. We definitely do believe that there are problems in recruitment, to make certain that with the appropriate training women are encouraged to take the test as well as especially the written examination. We want a much more thorough review of that to identify what is in the exam- ination. We know there is a bias. We know statistically there is a bias. We do not know exactly what it is. I remember one question which at the time I scratched my head and could not figure out why it was relevant. Why is it relevant to know the name of the last holy Roman Emperor? What does that have to say about your ability to issue visas and to mediate between quarreling ship captains and seamen in Bombay? I do not know. Mr. BUCIIANAN. I am pleased to hear your comment on the change on the oral examination. There has been an impression that has been misinformed. There has been the presumption that a woman would be a consular rather than a political or economic officer and this has had some impact on the nature of that examination and the rating of the person. Mrs. KING. We are also very concerned about the way women get appointed to cones because the qualifications that they are looking for which place you in a political cone or economic cone, consular cone or Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 265 administrative cone, again, we do not know how relevant that is to what may be reasonably expected of you througl out your lifetime career. One of the reasons why we have asked for a representative service in all grades and all functions in all regions is because you do not need to recruit more women for the consular corp. Thirty percent of all women officers are consular officers. You do not need to recruit more women in the typing pools. Women are already there. Only 4 percent of all women officers are in the political cone. Mr. BUCHANAN. How would you assess the recent action by the Department to expand on a worldwide basis the former pilot program of Foreign Service spouses' employment? Mrs. KING. I am not quite certain I understand. Mr. BUCHANAN. This committee had insisted that Foreign Service spouses be considered for employment, primarily thinking in terms of replacement of foreign nationals, and that there be training. State had instituted the program on a pilot project basis which had accom- plished approximately nothing. Quite recently they expanded that worldwide. Mrs. KING. In Japan, the local salaries just may exceed the Ameri- can salaries. In India and Pakistan in which I have spent a consider- able amount of my career, it would give them one-tenth of the salary of an American. I think you have to look at what work is being done. If the spouse has gone through the Civil Service Commission or through the De- partment of State exams, did their typing test, their shorthand and then qualified as a Foreign Service reserve secretary, if you ask her to go to Indonesia and pay her one-third of an American salary, I do not think she is is going to be very happy about that. However, there may be some positions in which she has no skills that are any different from a local employee and the same salary may be just. I do think you have to be flexible. Mr. BUCHANAN. We provided for part time employment also. Our intent in the subcommittee was not to put down women but to provide employment opportunities for women who had no employment and were all spouses. There are Foreign Service spouses around the world who are totally unemployed and who have talents and resources which may be of a value to our Government. They have no employment oppor- tunity because they are spouses of American Foreign Service officers. Our hope had been some of these talents and resources might be used by our Government. Mrs. KING. There are lots of ways. There was a very good memoran- dum that came out of USICA. It was when I was in Bombay. It had to be in the late 1960's. It said that women should be considered for work that is part-time, full-time temporary, contractual, et cetera. You were to use your imagination. If you have an exhibition coming in and you are going to be terribly busy, rather than bringing people out from Washington to beef up the mission, examine what resources you have at the post. There are going to be certain situations in which it is most efficient and most just to use spouses who are at the post. There will be other situations in which the Service will have a con- tinuing need for persons with certain kinds of skills-functional or regional-so it should develop a cadre of career employees with those skills and expertise. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 266 One of my problems with the act is there is a lot of detail in here that I just think is dangerous to put in an act because it limits your flexibility and the world certainly changes. The Foreign Service has changed fantastically since I entered 23 years ago. We are not talking about a bill that is only going to be good for 5 years. It is going to be around for 30 years. I would think in this case what you perhaps need to do is to state what your objective is and to authorize the Secretary of State to issue the appropriate regulations rather than to attempt to define the program and give the numbers and all of the rest. At least this Secretary of State, I have faith, would really attempt to do that and in a way that would be fair for both employees and spouses. Mr. BUCHANAN. The basic thrust of your testimony is certainly some- thing I identify with in providing, equal opportunity for women and persons regardless of sex in the Foreign Service and throughout the Federal Establishment and is something long past due. I hate to read these statistics, Mr. Chairman. I keep hearing these reassuring things from various parties and then I look at the statistics. Mr. FASOE L. You do not expect the Department of State to be any better than any other agency, do you ? Mr. BUCHANAN. I would expect it to be less good probably, Mr. Chairman. I am very discouraged at the whole record. Mr. FASCELL. Look at the University of Alabama. Mr. BUCHANAN. You cannot hit me, Mr. Chairman, because I would Mrs. KING. One of the reasons why I think USICA and even the Department of State may be having a little difficulty with getting women into the Foreign Service is the same woman who is graduating from college and even going through law school has a lot of choices in law firms and businesses and media that they did not have before. I do not know that the Foreign Service can offer a career as at- tractive as others now available in our society as a whole. Mr. BUCHANAN. In society as a whole the Federal Government is the physician who is actively engaged in trying to heal what ails the rest of society. The physician has failed to heal himself at all in my judg- ment. That may be prejudice but I feel very strongly about the Federal Establishment. I hope we can do better. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Buchanan, I am delighted you found Mrs. King militant enough for you. Mr. BUCHANAN. He is giving me a hard time. I told him in private we finally had a witness that was militant enough to suit me. Mr. FASCELL. I thought it ought to be on the record. Mrs. KING. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. There are a lot of pluses and minuses. I am here to talk about the minuses. I did make some changes in my prepared testimony as I went along. There have been some efforts and there has been some progress. I think the real problem is the lack of an affirmative action program in the Department of State that deals with equal employment oppor- tunities. Mr. FASCELL. The most important thing about that as far as I am concerned, as you have stated on the record, is that this Secretary of say "Amen." Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 State and those around him are very much committed. They certainly have impressed me that way. Mr. BUCHANAN. I believe that is true. Mr. FASCELL. The only reason we are even fooling with this bill is because Secretary Vance made a commitment to this subcommittee that the administration would get behind it and make all the neces- sary internal changes that are going to be required to deal with af- firmative action and equal employment opportunities and all the other things that need to be done. Mrs. KING. You should draw this to the attention of those who draft your revisions to this bill. AFSA, AFGE and others have claimed that the amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1963 by title VII and the Executive order-extending to Federal agencies the prohibition against discrimination-does not apply to the Foreign Service. As I understand it, the reason for this is that the Civil Service Commission was to implement these provisions and there are those who claim that it does not cover the Foreign Service. They also claim that the Execu- tive order on affirmative action does not apply to us. Mr. FASCELL. We appreciate the emphasis. We got the point the first time. I was not aware of that position. I cannot imagine there is any legal base for it. That is my immediate reaction without looking at the statutes. That is what I would call beer conversation. Jim? Mr. LEACH. I am not sure beer would be an appropriate analogy for the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. You are trying to promote that old myth that every- body drinks martinis straight up. Mrs. KING. Not in the tropics, gin and tonic. Mr. LEACH. I would like to test your militancy. Would you favor a constitutional amendment calling for busing between cones? John Buchanan has been very interested in this issue. He has been on both sides. [Laughter.] Mrs. KING. I think we may have gotten one. We are examining it. It is quite obvious if you stack all the women officers when they come in under the consular cones and the budget and fiscal and personnel functions in the administrative cone, that things are not going to change. AFSA was for freezing cones the way they were. My understanding of the Department's position-a much better witness would be the gentleman sitting to my right-is that there is an opportunity to change your formal skill code-the code relates to the specific function within the cone-over several years if you can get successive assignments in a code different f.om your present code. For example, say you are a secretary and you are interested in doing budget and fiscal work which will permit you to rise to grade levels not available for secre- taries. You will go to the personnel people and tell them about uni- versity or other training you have in accounting or budget work and your interest in getting an assignment in a budget and fiscal position. If you succeed, that job is probably for 2 years. Then you try to get your next assignment in the same budget and fiscal code. At that point, as I understand it, you are eligible to be considered to have your skill code changed from that of a secretary. There is a review process in this : It will depend upon the need for budget and fiscal personnel and 52-083 0 - 80 - 18 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 your qualifications. But, this new procedure unlocks -the bars at the gate wiiich now prevents change. Mr. LEACH. I would like to stress that you get locked into a system when you start to accept people initially in one cone or another and you advertise for that cone. I think any of us that have ever been associated with the Foreign Service are truly impressed with the coin- petition to get in but not infrequently are appalled by those that are finally selected. There is an irony beyond belief. As a graduate student, I looked at my friends who took the exam. It always struck me that the exact people that I would have taken did not get accepted and those that I would not, did. I think part of the problem really is this tonal structure. It also has the disadvantage of making people think they will have an easier chance if they choose a less attractive cone. It also has the disadvantage of possibly reducing the chances of those that might have chosen a more competitive cone. I really think it. should be examined. That has nothing to do with the fact that quite obviously within State one develops specialties. One develops regional specialties. One develops trade specialties. People concentrate and that is very reason- able but they do not necessarily have to specialize forever. One of the most interesting parts of your testimony related to the fact of under utilization; that is, 43 percent of women were serving in positions one grade below what they were qualified for. It has always struck me that is a problem in State not just of women but maybe of everybody, in the sense State is loaded with enormously qualified peo- ple who spend a good part of their career in underutilized positions. Would you say that this 43 percent is about average compared to everyone in State or is it specifically negative for women? Mrs. KING. We did that study for the Interdependence Subcommit- tee of the President's Commission on the International Women's Year. We recommended-and the Commission agreed-that the President direct the Secretary of State, the Administrator of AID, and the Di- rector of USICA to make a comparative analysis for men and women of Foreign Service ranks and positions held. That analysis was never done. We have asked the Department for it on two different occasions. The one answer did not tell us anything because they have lumped together the figures for the various Foreign Service categories-FSO's, FSR's, and FSRU's. Any analysis of personal rank versus position grade has to separate occupational functions and grades, for example, are women administrative officers of grade 3 doing as well as their male peers? Otherwise, the comparison is lost, the percentages are skewed when you compare lower level occupations like nurse and sec- retary in which women are concentrated with higher level occupations like doctor and political negotiator in which men are concentrated. But, we have been unable to get the Department to be responsive on that issue. Mr. LEACH. In general, do you support the principle of making a provision for the possibility of double promotions and do you think that might be beneficial to minorities and women? Mrs. KING. Under the present promotional system, it would be devastating for women and minorities. Mr. LEACH. Why? Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mrs. KING. Because the people in the promotion panel are reading efficiency reports that have been written by supervisors-predomi- nantly men-who do not see the actual qualifications and potential of their women subordinates. They do not see women as leaders. Mr. LEACH. That.is another issue. Mrs. KING. If you are saying there should be a system for remedial promotion, yes, of course. Mr. LEACH. I didn't have in mind the remedial issue. Rather, the pos- sibility in a select number of cases for extraordinary merit to be the basis of a double promotion. Mr. FASCELL. That exists, does it not? Mrs. KING. The problem is not that there is a lack of women of extraordinary merit but that their merit goes unreported. Right now there is some opportunity for accelerated promotion. But, preference is given-in my grade for example-to those who have been in grade for 5 years. I do not know what the periods are for preference in pro- motion in other grades. At the present time, if you really are a super- star with outstanding efficiency reports but you have only been in grade 1 or 2 years, you can still be promoted but your chances are greatly reduced. Identification of the "superstars" is one of the func- tions of the promotion panel. I tend to think that unless you are really talking about remedying past errors of great substance you should not have double promotions. So long as bias persists and is reflected in efficiency reports, women and minorities would not benefit from double promotions. Promotion panels put on the "fast track" people who have done well in demand- ing jobs working under influential people. If women are not given demanding jobs then they never have a chance to show what they can do. The promotional system is so bound in with your assignment system that the two are inseparable. And, it is the same psychological bar- riers and mind set in both that women face. Bias is still formidable and women do not have a chance. If I had a chance to say where affirmative action would take place in the Department of State after entry, I would say assignments. Mr. BUCHANAN. Could that not be another piece of the puzzle? Since the problem is the dearth of women in the upper levels, it would seem to me if you corrected these other things, a double promotion might be one of the pieces to help change it. Mrs. KING. There was a proposal in the midsixties by the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary, then Deputy Under Secretary for Management. That proposal was a very interesting one. What she said was : We lack women in the senior grades. We will go through and select some in the middle grades that look like they are superior but have not had a chance to show what they could do. Let us sit down and figure out what kind of assign- ments they would need in order to become ambassadors within 5 years or 10 years. I was one of the people who was selected for that. I had to sit down and try to figure out as a practical. matter what I would have to learn in 5 years to be an ambassador in 10 years. You do not want to put a woman into a position or anybody into a position in which they are going to fall flat on their face. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 That was the program. Do you know what happened to that pro- gram in my case? The first assignment proposed for me was to a. class 3 position-a supervisory one-in a country and function in which I had perviously served. There was such a vacancy in 1971 but the as- signment officials wouldn't make the assignment. His point of view was "why should she be given that opportunity? I am a grade 3 officer. Why should she have it and not me?" So, despite the support in prin- ciple to the program of accelerated assignments, for selected middle- grade women by the Deputy Under Secretary for Management, to the best of my knowledge, the program never got off the ground. In my view, that was a very imaginative program. It did not pro- mote you out of turn but put you in a good position to earn an acceler- ated promotion. Obviously, if you are working at a grade one level higher than your personal rank and doing a good job of it the pro- motion boards will take that into consideration. That may be a better plan than double promotion. Mr. FASCELL. I do not know about the dynamics of any .organization more than two which I am running. I think any system you build is going to be subject to human dynamics. Even guys outside the Depart- ment run the Department or try to. I can think of one right now mak- ing more money than he deserves but his friends were selected and they are in the right places. I am not saying anybody is disloyal. It is a fact of life. If there were no women on the selection board, how do you get selected? Mrs. KING. It is not just any women on the selection board. It has to be a woman who understands women's positions and the nature of the bias. Sometimes the issue is very difficult to identify as relating to discrimination on the basis of sex. If you have been given a good position and you walk into your new office and you are seen as a powder puff, you are never asked to do any- thing. You are never told what happens in the country team meetings. You are never permitted to read the cables which is your work's life- blood. You do not know what is happening. Your advice is never asked. That is so subtle and it is very difficult to get around. Mr. FASCELL. It forces you into the other stereotype, the obnoxious woman. Mrs. KING. Yes. If a man is aggressive, he is considered masterful. Mr. FASCELL. If a woman fights for her rights, right away they say she is a troublemaker. Mrs. KING. It is difficult to put women on the selection boards es- pecially in the higher grades because there are so few higher ranking women. We have suggested that they take recent retirees, women who have recently retired who attain high rank and put them on as public members if needed in order to beef up the promotion system. There are a lot of very creative ideas like that which we have sug- gested in the past. Our problem with the affirmative action program was that the career employees who set out to implement the recom- mendations did not know what the problem was. Therefore, their solu- tions were irrelevant where they even addressed the EEO. I regret to say that in assignments and career counseling and training, they did not even address EEO. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much, Mrs. King. Mrs. KING. Thank you very much for letting me come. Mr. FASCELL. I am almost afraid to say "gentlemen." According to my book and the record, we finished our section-by-section examination on page 28 last time and we. start with section 442, "Within Class Salary Increases." Just point out the substantive differences if any. Mr. READ. We are ready to proceed in that way, Mr. Chairman. We would also appreciate the opportunity to address the WAO legisla- tive proposal and we could address it on paper or whatever way you wish. Mr. FASCELL. If you would like to comment on it, that would be fine. STATEMENT OF HON. BEN H. READ, UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. READ. In the most general vein as the Department's equal op- portunity officer, I welcome and agree with the thrust of Mrs. King's remarks. There is no question that there is a catchup of enormous proportions. As the Secretary made clear, we feel we have made some progress and Mrs. King was good enough to state that also. We are very mindful of the distance to go. The techniques and ways of doing so are described in the 140 questions and answers which we have filed in response to the committee's request. They are very detailed responses on the exam process and on the changes which were made to attempt to get at these factors. On the legislative proposals, I do not recall the AFSA testimony as Mrs. King does, although I was not here and I simply read the A.FSA prepared testimony in advance. We want there to be no am- biguity about the full applicability of equal opportunity provisions of law to the Department. As you know the words "merit principles" appear repeatedly throughout the bill and are fully applicable to the Department. The No. 2 principle is equal opportunity. Mr. MICHEL. If I may, Mr. Chairman, there are two points. First, it. is the legal position of the Department of State that title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to the Foreign Service and to the Depart- ment of State. Mr. FASCELL. We will just say that and that is the end of it. Mr. MICHEL. The merit principles referred to in this bill are defined in the bill as the merit system principles set out in the Civil Service Reform Act. They apply anyway, but we wanted to give that emphasis in this legislation. Mr. FASCELL. I think probably for legislative esthetics a restate- ment of the applicability of title VII is the easiest way to handle it rather than interspersing it all through the bill in the equal employ- ment language. Mr. MICHEL. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is not referred to in the bill. It is referred to in the bill as merit principles. Mr. FASCELL. I understand that. I am talking about Mrs. King's testimony and going back to the applicability of title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. We do not need to refer to title VII of the Civil Rights Act. I think everyone agrees it does apply. Mr. READ. It is title I of the Civil Service Reform Act which has these important provisions. Mr. MICHEL. The first of the merit principles is that recruitment and selection and advancement should be determined on the basis of knowledge and skills in open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity. The second of the merit principles is all employees should receive fair and equitable treatment without regard to political affiliation, race, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping conditions. We think these principles specifically include in the concept of merit the notion of.equal opportunity and we are concerned that by saying "merit and equal opportunity" we will suggest they are two different things. In the Civil Service Reform Act, one is a part of the other. Mr. FASCELL. That occurred to me also. I think we could handle that in language in the report with respect to the reference to title I of the Civil Service Act and the definition of merit principles in- cluding equal opportunity rather than trying to amend the definition in this act which might be confusing. We will have to think about that but that is my immediate reaction to it although I do not know how the others feel about it. That is some- thing we can examine as we go along. Mr. MICHEL. Section 442 of the bill, "Within Class Salary In- creases," is a generalization and a simplication. The existing law has two provisions for within class salary increases, one for officers and reserve officers and the other for the Staff Corps. The one for the officers and reserve officers is quite detailed. It says that the "within grade" comes every July if you have been in class for 9 months and have not had an equivalent increase in pay. It defines an equivalent increase in pay in some detail, and includes in the definition any other in- creases the Secretary may designate by regulation. We have substituted for this unnecessary verbiage a formula that says members of Foreign Service will get periodic within class in- creases unless the selection board decides performance falls below the standards of the class. The notion of additional step increases is in existing law and is carried forward in subsection (b). We think the possible denial of a within class increase and possible double within class increase would work better for the Foreign Service than the "merit pay" concept of the Civil Service Reform Act. We have had a lot of discussions with employee representatives and others and the civil service approach seems to present some special problems with implementation in a worldwide, highly dispersed For- ei an Service. Mr. FASCELL. Any questions on this section? Mrs. SCHROEDER. I have some questions. Are you going to set any target numbers for how many people in a class are going to get double step increases? Mr. READ. We thought it would be unwise to do so certainly in the law, Mrs. Schroeder, because it is first and foremost the function of Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 the selection boards under our system which are independent entities and not subject to outside influence. Mrs. Sel-IROEDER. In other words, could everyone get it? Does this have any merit? Mr. READ. Obviously it will be "x" percentage at the top only who qualify and "x" percentage below who are denied such increases. I think the determination has to be left up to the boards as to who is deserving to be in those categories as defined. The precepts will be worked out with great care. It will also be a matter of available money because it may have to be a zero net sum. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Where will that money come from? Mr. READ. As I say, it may have to be a zero sum in terms of who gets double increases and who have increases withheld. I want to emphasize that this will not affect the annual cost of living compa- rability increases which go to all employees whose pay is not capped. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We had a gentleman testify yesterday about how everybody wrote up wonderful performance ratings for everybody else. The real question is how do you prevent that from happening. You say you have to prevent rating inflation because for everyone who goes up you are going to have someone who does not get a raise to keep the money. Mr. READ. Unless there is additional funding in the authorization- appropriation process. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you. Mr. MICHEL. Section 451, "Local Compensation Plans," is unchanged from existing law except for a parenthetical reference at the top of page 29 to participation in local social security plans. This participation in local social security plans with respect to foreign national employees is authorized by current law. The parenthetical reference here is to emphasize that type of employee benefit as a pre- ferred method of compensation for the foreign nationals. Mr. FASCELL. What about the issue raised by Mrs. King with respect to spouses and other family members? Mr. MICHEL. This section provides affirmative authority for the Secretary to pay Americans who are family members at local rates. That is a preservation of existing authority that was enacted last year. The particular application of that will have to be very carefully implemented because of the problems of some places where local employees make more than Americans and some places where they make far less and you have to look at the particular job. We thought for purposes of this bill, and given the fact that the pilot program has not given us a great deal of experience to make judgments, that it was better to leave that flexibility in the law than take it out. What we have in the bill, is the family members may be paid at American rates or at the foreign national rates. The bill does not seek to determine which will be used. We may find this does not work. We would not like to be deprived of the flexible authority to try to work this out in a way that will maximize employment opportunities. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Go ahead. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. Section 452, "Salaries of Consular Agents," is some- what more flexible than the present law, which contemplates classes of consular agents. The Secretary then decides whether a particular consular agent has enough work to do and is in a locality that warrants one class or another. This bill provides for the Secretary to decide more on an individual basis in a particular case what the consular agent's workload is, taking into account the salary rates paid in the particular locality, and to set the consular agent's salary on an indi- vidual basis. Mr. FASCELL. Is "consular agent" defined? Mr. MICHEL. "Consular agent" is listed as one of the categories of Foreign Service personnel. The consular agent is an American or a foreign national who is a resident at a place where there is some need for consular services but not enough to establish a regular consular post and assign a consul or consul general with a staff of people serv- ing on a rotational basis. Mr. FASCELL. That is a secretarial appointment under section 303. Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. It is generally a part-time job held by a businessman. Mr. FASCELL. Defined in section 103. Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Subsection 103(7). Any questions on section 452? 1N6 response.] Mr. FASCELL. Section 453. Mr. MICHEL. Section 453, "Compensation for Imprisoned Foreign National Employees" in effect extends the Missing Persons Act to foreign national employees who are imprisoned abroad as a result of their employment by the United States. This is no change from the existing law. The present law incorporates this authority within sec- tion 444 of the 1946 act on local compensation plans. It is really not a compensation plan. It is an incidental, separate feature of employ- ment for foreign nationals and we broke it out and made it a separate section. Section 461, "Temporary Service as Principal Officer," combines two sections in the 1946 act which dealt separately with such tempo- rary service as head of the diplomatic mission or as head of the con- sular post. The substance of the two sections of existing law is the same. It seemed unnecessary to preserve that distinction so we simply combined and generalized the language. This authorizes the Secretary to determine the amount of additional pay not to exceed the pay of the usual principal officer which should be given to a member of the services temporarily in charge of the post. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. FASCELL. Mrs. Schroeder. Mrs. SCHROEDER. In the civil service, detailed employees do not get paid the higher rate until they have been there for 6 months. How do you define "temporary"? Mr. MICHEL. The way that the limit is set by regulation is to estab- lish a minimum time of service as temporary principal officer or charge d'affaires before the charge d'affaires' pay becomes applicable. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 If the Ambassador is away for a week and the deputy chief of mission is serving as charge d'affaires for a week, there would be no salary differential. If the Ambassador is away for 2 months, the charge d'affaires would receive a differential for the second month. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Would it make sense to apply the same rule as in the civil service? Would you have an objection to 6 months? Mr. READ. The problem as I see it, Mrs. Schroeder, is those periods or gaps are indeterminate. It depends frequently on the Presidential appointment process which may be suspended between administra- tions or at other times for policy reasons. Frequently, the full load is placed on the No. 2 person for extended periods of time, but for whatever period it is a heavy set of responsibilities. Mrs. SCHROEDER. We have the same problem in the civil service. That is why I am wondering why we should make a distinction. Would it not be easier to make it similar? Mr. MICHEL. We have not provided for any specific period in the legislation. This might well be a subject for discussion in the com- patibility forum in which the Office of Personnel Management partici- pates. We would not want to legislate any period in this bill. Mr. BARNES. I am not familiar enough with the civil service prac- tice. The charge d'affaires does serve as a representative of the Presi- dent during that period when the Ambassador is absent and has the responsibilities not only for the State Department component but for the whole mission. Mr. MICHEL. Section 462, "special allowances," continues without change section 451 of the 1946 act. This provides for a special allow- ance for Foreign Service officers who are required to work substantial hours in excess of normal requirements. The Foreign Service officers under the present law do not receive overtime under the premium pay chapter in title 5 of the United States Code. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. We are pleased to do the special allowance thing because they do not receive overtime. It is my understanding that the requirement has limited this to some 100 persons. That is not in the present law and not in your new section. I wonder why the limitation if I am correct? Mr. READ. It was an exchange of letters which Senator Pell Mr. BUCHANAN. Extracted. Mr. READ. Thank you. At the time of passage of last year's law. Mr. BUCHANAN. Is this a permanent commitment? Will it apply to the new law as well? Mr. READ. It is on the record. There is no duration set. We are following the existing law. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. It involves a change in mind or change in personnel whichever comes first. Mr. BUCHANAN. Maybe they could all hand in their resignations. Mr. FASCELL. I think the Senator would find that extremely difficult. Let's go to chapter 5. Mr. MICHEL. Section 501, "Classification of Positions," restates in a somewhat simplified way the present section 441 of the 1946 act, which distinguishes between Foreign Service positions in the Depart- Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 ment and Foreign Service positions abroad. This section simply lumps them together and says the Secretary will establish the classifications for positions to be occupied by members of the Service. Mr. FASCELL. Any questions? [No response.] Mr. MICHEL. Section 511, "Assignments to Foreign Service Posi- tions" combines a number of provisions in the 1946 act which now provide separately for the assignment of Foreign Service officers, Re- serve officers, Staff Corps, alien clerks, and employees. It says the Sec- retary may assign members of the Service to any position in which the member is qualified to serve. The principal difference I think is the reference to the new merit principles in the Civil Service Reform Act. These are to be followed as applicable, in the assignment process. Subsection (a) does emphasize the rank-in-person system of the Foreign Service. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I am confused. Could you tell me how many civil service employees are serving in Foreign Service posi- tions and vice versa? Mr. MICHEL. Subsection (b) sets forth a general policy that Foreign Service positions are to be filled by Foreign Service personnel, but also it is designed to permit interchange with the civil service. We have not tried to put a cap on that and say not more than 5 percent, or that for every Foreign Service officer in a civil service job, you may have a civil service employee in a Foreign Service job. Those kinds of mathematical formulas when you are dealing with a relatively small service can operate in a particular situation to deny the opportunity to make a particular assignment even though it makes a lot of sense. I think this is something we will want to watch because they are dif- ferent personnel systems and you do want the Foreign Service person in the Foreign Service job. We would like to have this broad author- ity for interchange where appropriate. This is a matter that could be discussed extensively within the Department, in the interagency con- text with the Office of Personnel Management, and with representa- tives of employees. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Do you have the numbers of how that works now? Mr. READ. We could supply them, Mrs. Schroeder. I do not know what the ratio is at the moment. We have 140 Foreign Service officers on assignment elsewhere and that includes a broad variety of things which you will see in one of the next sections. I do not know what the other agencies' total is at the moment. There are a variety of inter- change agreements. Mr. MICHEL. The final subsection (c) continues the existing author- ity of the President to assign a member of the Service to serve as a charge d'affaires. That authority is given to the President rather than the Secretary because the charge d'affaires is a chief of 'mission as defined and has those authorities and responsibilities as the President's representative. Mr. FASCELL.?Section 521. Mr. MICHEL. Section 521, "Assignments to Agencies, International Organizations and Other Bodies," is derived primarily from sections 571, 573, and 574 of the 1946 act. It provides for the other side of the subject addressed in section 511(b). Section 511(b) says you can put Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 non-Foreign Service people in Foreign Service positions. This section says you can put Foreign Service people in non-Foreign Service positions. What is new in this section is a 4-year limitation at the top of page 37. These assignments outside the Foreign Service can be very useful in broadening experience and as a step in career development. If you took somebody in the Foreign Service and put them in the civil service for a long time it could be detrimental to career development. This 4- year limitation applies in addition to the 8-year limitation on assign- ments within the United States which we will come to later. This is going to apply, for example, if the member of the Foreign Service were assigned to an international organization having an office in Geneva. The maximum of that assignment would be 4 years. The other difference which should be noted is in subsection (b) (1) on page 36. Under the present law, section 571 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, a member of the Foreign Service who is assigned to a civil service job with a higher salary than the member's Foreign Serv- ice class gets a salary differential equivalent to the difference between the Foreign Service class of that officer and the salary of the position which he is serving in. If you have a Foreign Service officer who comes back to Washington and is assigned to the Department of State to a Foreign Service posi- tion higher than the personal class, they get no salary differential. If they go to a position of comparable rank in the Commerce Depart- ment, in a civil service job, they get a salary differential. I think in practice this tends to diminish some assignment opportu- nities that might otherwise be present. It is at variance with the rank-in-person system. We provided in this bill to maintain the rank- in-person system whether they are assigned to the Department or as- signed to another agency. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. FASCELL.Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Maybe you have not gotten to it and I do not want to run ahead of you but there has been a change pertaining to the language to the Congress. Am I running ahead of you? Mr. MicxEL. This is in this section also. Mr. BucHANAN. You emphasize outside Washington, D.C. We had a quota thing but we did not have an emphasis on outside Washington, D.C. Mr. READ. There is a 20-percent limit in existing law, Mr. Buchanan, to assignments to the Congress. When we have a program which at present totals 16 or 17 officers, it gets rather ridiculous to have such a precise percentage. We felt the thrust of the Pearson amendment which is the root of this was to get people out to the State and local governments as part of the Americanization effort; not to have them here in the Washington milieu. We felt that emphasis should remain as we understood it from the original Pearson amendment. Mr. BUCHANAN. I thought the situation was there were people as- signed to the Hill and what does this do to that now? Mr. MICFIEL. It does not remove that authority. It remains. It just does not quantify it. Mr. READ. Twenty percent seems like too rigid a statutory require- ment. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. BUCHANAN. You add the language "so long as assignments un- der this paragraph emphasize service outside Washington, D.C." Mr. READ. Which they now do. Mr. MICHEL. It was the original intent as we understood it. Mr. BUCHANAN. That comes out including assignment to a Member of office of Congress. It seems to me those who are assigned to the Congress might, as is now the case, more logically work here than out in a district office. Mr. READ. That is understood. Mr. MICHEL. The paragraph provides authority to assign people to State and local governments, public schools, community colleges, and offices of Congress and says, of that total, the assignments should emphasize service outside Washington, D.C. That is, assignments to Congress should not become so much of that total as to detract from that overall objective. Mr. BUCHANAN. Fine. I just wanted to clarify what you meant. Mr. MICHEL. Rather than a 20-percent cap it should not be so many to detract from the overall emphasis of the paragraph. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Section 531. Mr. MICHEL. Section 531, "Service in the United States and Abroad," introduces a new express provision that personnel of the Service shall be obligated to serve abroad and shall be expected to serve abroad for substantial portions of their careers. It combines this new expression with the 8-year limit on assignments within the United States which is from the 1946 act. I think the cur- rent law implied that normally career personnel would serve abroad. This has now been made explicit. Mr. FASCELL. Up to now it has been implicit but not explicit? Mr. MICHEL. Exactly. Mr. FASCELL. Was it covered in regulations? Mr. READ. It has been a basic underlying premise but never articu- lated in regulations or law as we think it should be. It is a basic princi- ple of the Service and does not represent any change in that regard. Mr. MICHEL. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. What you want to do is provide a statutory base for the definition of "Foreign Service"? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. It is so fundamental it should be in the statute and not left to the regulations? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. This addresses the notion of using the Foreign Service personnel system as a way to staff the domestic positions in the Department. It provides as a matter of law that this is not going to be the way the Foreign Service personnel authority is used. Subsection (b) is changed from existing law. We have a provi- sion in section 572 in the 1946 act which says Foreign Service officers shall be assigned to the United States for periods of not less than 3 years during their first 15 years of service. There is no provision that deals with other categories of Foreign Service personnel. We think there is less need for a mandatory re- quirement today than there may have been in 1946 when we did not have Foreign Service positions in Washington and the tendency was for the assignments to continue overseas for extended periods without reassignment or re-Americanization. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 We have provided a more general statement; that is, consistent with the needs of the Service, the Secretary shall seek to assign all U.S. citizen members of the Service to Washington at least once during each 15-year period. There are some categories, communicators in particular, where it may not be possible in all cases to meet that goal simply because there are very few communicator jobs in Washington; most of them are overseas. Mr. FASCELL. What is the present law or regulation with respect to U.S. reassignment? Mr. MICHEL. The present law with respect to Foreign Service of- ficers is they must be assigned to the United States at least once during their initial 15 years of service and nothing for the rest of the Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. This is expanded to include everybody? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. FASCELL. Mrs. Schroeder. Mrs. SCHROEDER. How is this going to work with AID? Mr. MICHEL. It will cover AID as well. Mrs. SCIIROEDER. How are you going to make that work? Do you not have a topheavy problem? Mr. MICHEL. Topheavy? Mrs. SCHROEDER. I think we had some testimony on that. Doesn't AID have a problem with rotations to Washington? Mr. READ. There is that problem but this particular provision is one they have not raised an issue with at all in the long discussions with us. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Can AID comply with it? Mr. READ. They have not flagged it as anything that would give them a problem. It does have universal applicability. Mr. FASCELL. The fact that they have fewer people overseas does not change the thrust of this section. You have to bring them back. Mr. MICIIEL. There is a qualifier "consistent with the needs of the service" that provides some flexibility. Mr. FASCrL L. There is nothing to prevent rotation every 2 years if you want to do it. Mr. MICHEL. No, sir. You cannot serve for more than 8 years in the United States. Mr. FASCELL. That 8-year limitation remains the same? It is the cur- rent law? Mr. MICIIEL. It is now 4 and 4. It remains 8. Subsection (c) is new. This provides authority for sabbaticals for the career members of the Senior Foreign Service as is provided by the Civil Service Reform Act for the senior executive service. Mr. FASCELL. Sabbaticals are now permitted, are they not? Mr. MICIIEL. This is 11 months with pay to go off and study. I guess we now have assignments in the training program. Mr. BARNES. Or we have leave without pay. Mr. MICIIEL. We do not have anything quite like this, which is in the Civil Service Reform Act. Mr. FASCELL. This institutionalizes sabbaticals by law with pay? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCE.LL. As contrasted with the present system which uses a variety of covers in order to get your people out on sabbaticals. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Mr. MICHEL. Someone can take leave without pay to study what they want to study. If they want to study what the Department wants them to study, they can be assigned to go to school. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Section 541. Mr. MICHEL. Section 541, "Temporary Details," is a technical pro- vision. It provides that if someone is given a job for a temporary period not to exceed 6 months, you will not call that a new assignment but it is called a temporary detail. It does not break their assignment. The present law provides for such a distinction between assignment and detail and draws the line at 4 months. We made it 6 months in here just to provide a little more flexibility. Mr. FASCELL. What is the relationship between this and what Mrs. Schroeder was talking about with the civil service? Mr. MICHEL. If someone comes back to serve on selection boards, as an example, while they are assigned to a Foreign Service post abroad, they are going to be in Washington for 2 months. We would not say your assignment to Rome is terminated and you are given a new as- signment to the selection boards in Washington and then you will have to go through an assignment panel and process at the end of that 2- month period. This says without interrupting your assignment you are detailed for 2 months. It does not affect salary. Mr. FASCELL. It does not get involved in the assignment panel and process? Mr. MICHEL. It is an administrative convenience in the interest of efficiency. Mr. FASCELL. Chapter 6. Mr. MICHEL. Promotions based on merit, section 601. Subsection (a) simply confirms that promotions shall be based on merit. This is in existing law. We changed it to refer to merit principles. Again, this is a reference to the principles of the Civil Service Reform Act. Subsection (b) provides for continuation of the use of the selection boards in the promotion process, and it extends as a matter of law the application of the selection board system to members of the service other than Foreign Service officers. At present the selection boards are required by law to be convened only for Foreign Service officers. They are provided for by regulation for the Reserve officers and Staff Corps. Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, we had a lot of discussion with a witness yesterday about this. Our witness professed that most of the evaluations were laudatory. If that is true, how do you make distinc- tions? How is this going to really end up being any kind of a merit selection? He said evaluation reports were all laudatory or most of them were. You always have that issue of fairness and the politics involved in how the board is selected and all those type of issues. We had some very long discussions about all this yesterday but most of it was philosophi- cal rather than substantive. Mr. READ. The problem essentially is an implementation and ad- ministrative one in that the system has a problem with inflation of language. There are many steps in the present process that determine the selection board. It is a continuing effort. There are about five ques tions in the written material which address what we are trying to do there. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 That problem exists before, during, and after this legislative process. It is something we have to work on continually. When you get the members of the Service to express their views on various facets of Foreign Service life, they have more confidence in the selection board process than in any other single facet of their For- eign Service career procedures. Mr. BARNES. We have been doing some reviews recently of the form we use to see whether we could provide some changes there. We are going to try to get to a fairer and more objective type of reading and have had discussions with the American Foreign Service Association whom we need to consult about those proposed changes. As you know, it is a problem in the old system of evaluation which has been the keystone of the civil service reform effort. It is one which is discussed very widely in the private sector, how do you find an evalu- ation system that will last long enough to be useful without being corrected. Mr. FASCELL. One of the thoughts which occurred to me while we discussed that was institutionalizing a negative evaluation along with a positive evaluation by identifying those qualities and individual characteristics in a negative sense as well as in a positive sense. You are looking for judgment and initiative and leadership qualities, in- dependent judgment, et cetera. They are usually standardized in the selection of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 weights. It seems to me that you could force evaluations on negative char- acteristics of individuals equally as well without making a narrative so there would not be any difficulty in articulating what it is you do not like. Mr. READ. We do that both in number systems and in narrative systems. Mr. FASCELL. The negative aspects? Mr. READ. Yes. Although the ratings gravitate upward. Mr. FASCELL. It is the basic characteristic of most people. Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put this issue in a little different perspective. For all of the problems inherent in Foreign Serv- ice promotions, the Foreign Service does a better job than any institu- tion in the U.S. Government in terms of the effort, time, and fairness put into the process. If anything, with all the problems in this system, I think it ought to be replicated in other Government agencies rather than turned upside down. There certainly are problems with a small group living with each other that you get into on ratings. Every once in a while you have an arbitrary person who wants to fight the system in such a manner that it works to the disadvantage of the individual. I have always found there were grounds for appeal and there were grounds for understanding. There were sometimes implicit ratings of the rating officers on how they rate other people. I remember they had a form in which you rated excellent, superior, or good and categories of excellent. Everybody got an excellent rating, but they might be a third step down in excellent instead of the first step. It is a sublety that is understood by the review boards, but which might not be understood by the outside world. I think we can stress too much the problem without recognizing that the end effect is really a very good one. When you contrast this with Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 civil service procedures, it is just dramatic. The only other area that does a comparable job, although I do not think quite as good, is the high levels of the military. With all our problems with some military selection, I think the military should be commended on their system as well. The civil service has a lot to learn. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Let's go to section 602. Mr. MICHEL. This section is "Promotion Into and Retention in the Senior Foreign Service." The first subsection sets out the basic idea that these promotions will be on the basis of selection board recom- mendations and that they will be made from among members who are serving in class 1 of the Foreign Service Schedule. Bear in mind we had earlier discussed the 5-percent ceiling on noncareer people in the Senior Foreign Service. The vast majority, about 95 percent, of the people who come into the Senior Foreign Service, will come in through this promotion process through the recommendations of selection boards. The subsection provides that the Secretary will establish a period within class 1 which is a promotion zone during which persons may be considered for entry into the Senior Foreign Service. Mr. FASCELL. This is all new.? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. Subsection (a) and subsection (b) also are new. Subsection (b) is a legislative direction to the Secretary to keep in mind in the process of promotion and retention at the senior ranks the need of the service for continuing admission of new members and for effective career development and promotional opportunities. It is to try to maintain a balance in the system and not get it clogged up at one place or another so the whole thing does not work as it should. Subsection (c) preserves with respect to the Senior Foreign Service the exemption from affidavit requirements which is in the existing law for Foreign Service officers. The Senior Foreign Service members will continue to be appointed to a class and their promotions will be af- fected by reappointment. This simply says when they are reappointed they do not have to sign an affidavit that they have not paid for their appointment and that they will not strike against the Government. This comes out of an experience involving a Foreign Service officer who had been recommended by the selection board and was promoted while in missing status and was unable to sign the affidavits. We went through a very difficult time getting him what he was entitled to. This preserves that authority. Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman? Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Leach. Mr. LEACH. In this general area, a very distinguished former am- bassador of the United States testified yesterday that there has been a politicization of the Foreign Service even down to the ranks of 5 and 6. Would you care to respond for this administration to that charge? Mr. READ. Yes. We have analyzed that charge repeatedly, Mr. Leach. I really do not think it bears up in close scrutiny. In terms of outside appointments, at the beginning of any new party administration, there is a curve up and then it trails off. The cycles as you try to track them from 1961 to 1969 to 1977 are really quite similar. Unfortunately it is hard to find the records of the schedule C appointments in those earlier years in the ranks below ambassadorial. Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 Approved For Release 2008/10/27: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100070001-3 We cannot assert with complete confidence that our analysis is correct but we think there is little to distinguish the schedule C type of appointments that have been made through FSR appointments in this period. Mr. LEACH. What about lateral entry type of appointments? Mr. READ. Lateral entry in recent years has been exclusively in the affirmative action/equal opportunity area. In terms of safeguards against politicization of the sort Ambassador Neumann is referring to, one very clear safeguard is the fact that people who come in as assistants to the principal officers of the Department will no longer be Foreign Service Reserve as they have been in the past. They will be civil service since they have no obligation to serve abroad. You also have the 5-percent limit on the noncareer appointments in the SFS. I do not think that concern is justified. Mr. LEACH. Thank you. Mr. FASCELL. Selection boards, section 603. Mr. MICHEL. Section 603 directs the Secretary to establish selection boards for the evaluation process. This section describes the functions of the selection board as including the ranking of members on the basis of performance and then provides, in addition, the selection boards may make various recommendations for promotions and awards of performance pay and so forth and other recommendations as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation. Mr. READ. An illustration would be within class increases which we referred to earlier. Mr. FASCELL. This is simply a rewrite of section 623? Mr. MICHEL. Yes, sir. It is less detailed and provides there will be selection boards. Mr. FASCELL. No substantive change? Mr. MICHEL. No, sir. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Section 612. Mr. MICHEL. Excuse me. It is substantively different in that it has a broader application. It applies not only to Foreign Service officers but to all members of the Senior Foreign Service and those receiving salaries under the Foreign Service schedule. It changes the scope of the law. Section 612, "Basis for Selection Board Review," describes the two areas that provide guidance to the selection board. Under subsection (a) they look at the records of individuals, the performance files, and under subsection (b) they look at the precepts that are provided to them by the Department which describes the needs of the service. They are looking at these two sources of guidance-what are the needs and what are the capabilities of the individuals they are evaluating to meet