Page images

Consular Service and some to the Diplomatic, and in some cases they would find it difficult to say just why they preferred one branch to the other. The Consular Service goes in a great deal more for detailed work and the handling of individual cases. The Diplomatic Service deals more in the handling of general questions and in dealing with political events and their interpretation to the advantage of our own Government. I know that I was more interested in this latter form of work as a life business. It is perfectly conceivable that after trying one branch of the work an officer may decide that he would prefer the other branch, and in such cases if he is properly qualified it should be easily possible for him to be transferred, if such transfer is in the interest of the public service.

The foregoing I have made as a statement of the qualifications upon entrance into the service. Let us suppose, however, that the diplomatic or consular officer desires to change after 20 years' service. He may have possessed all the qualifications for transfer at the beginning, but after 20 years he may no longer possess them, because during that time he has formed his habits of work, his ways of thinking, and his manner of estimating events in such a way as to make him an expert and a valuable official in his own branch of the service but rendering him of doubtful value or no value at all in the other branch. A young graduate of a medical college may be equally fitted to take up surgery or general practice. However, after some years of specializing in one branch or the other he may no longer be fitted to take up the other branch. There are some men who are so well balanced in their interests as individuals that they could turn readily to any one of several forms of endeavor and make a success, but that does not apply to the general run of normal people. The whole thing boils down to the circumstances surrounding the individual case. STATEMENT OF HON. WILBUR J. CARR, DIRECTOR OF THE

CONSULAR SERVICE, STATE DEPARTMENT. Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I suggest now that you ask Mr. Carr to proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Leaving out of account the proposed substitute for section 16, which is the retirement section, the bill as it passed the House last year is in reasonably satisfactory condition from your standpoint ?

Mr. CARR. Yes; I think so. There are doubtless several amendments, simple ones, that might be introduced to improve the bill in one way or another. One, for example, that might be mentioned is on page 1, section 1 of the bill, line 4. We understand it to be the desire of some of the other branches of the Government, particularly the Department of Commerce, that the expression “ foreign service should be a little more comprehensive than implied by the bill and should include all other officers of the United States accredited with diplomatic standing. The commercial attaché, the military attaché, the naval attaché once they are in the foreign'field attached to a diplomatic mission, are, so far as the foreign field is concerned, part of the foreign service, and it would be desirable, therefore, to include them in this expression, "foreign service," as used in this bill. Further down on line 6 it has been thought de


[ocr errors]

sirable to be more definite and in line 6, on page 1, after That the officers of the foreign service shall,” insert the words "under the direction of the Department of State,” to distinguish the officers to which this bill applies from the foreign representatives of the Department of Commerce and the officers sent abroad to represent other departments of the Government.

Mr. Rogers of Massachusetts. Will you repeat your first suggested amendment?

Mr. CARR. In line 4.
Mr. COLLINS. What do you strike out?

Mr. Carr. Strike out nothing but simply insert in line 4 after the words “United States " the expression, “and all other officers of the United States accredited with diplomatic standing,

so that the entire sentence shall read "That hereafter the Diplomatic and Consular Service of the United States and all other officers of the United States accredited with diplomatic standing shall be known as the foreign service of the United States."

That does not modify the effect of the bill at all, but it merely elaborates the definition of " foreign service for the benefit of anyone who may think a further explanation necessary.

Mr. MOORĖS. Did I understand you to say that you include the commercial attachés ?

Mr. Carr. That would include commercial attachés, military attachés, naval and all attachés in the foreign service who have diplomatic standing abroad through having been accredited by the Government.

Mr. COLE. That is, officers of the foreign service under the Secretary of State?

Mr. CARR. Under the direction of the Department of State.

Then I would suggest that in section 3, page 2, line 12, there should also be inserted after the words “ foreign service " the phrase, “under the direction of the Department of State.”

Mr. COLE. You have to carry it all the way through there.
Mr. CARR. Those are the only places.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Why could we not insert there a definition of what is meant by the foreign service, and what officers it includes, and then throughout the bill use the words “foreign service.” It does seem to me that we should put something there to designate this as the foreign service of the State Department, and that there is another foreign service. Why not put a definition of what is meant by foreign service in the first paragraph, and then use the words “ foreign service” throughout? It impresses me that you are belittling your bill to say, " foreign service under the direction of the Department of State," indicating that there was some other foreign service under some other department of the Government.

Mr. O'CONNELL. There is one under the Department of Commerce.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a minor service as compared with this foreign service.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Then why designate this as being “the foreign service under the Department of State”! Why not say in the beginning what is meant by foreign service and then use the words foreign service" throughout the bill?

Mr. CARR. Is not that already done by this first amendment, where it reads, “the Diplomatic and Consular Service of the United

States and all other officers of the United States accredited with diplomatic standing shall be known as the foreign service of the United States "?

Mr. LINTHICUM. Then why change the balance of the bill. That is a very good definition.

Mr. COOPER. I do not see the necessity of it.

Mr. CARR. May I make the suggestion that it is a matter for committee action.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. We had better take it up in executive session and discuss its utility. What other amendments have you?

Mr. CARR. Those are the only amendments I have to offer.

Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. If the committee will take the committee print, part 1, and turn to pages 31 to 32 inclusive, it will find printed an amendment which at the proper time I should like to offer as a substitute for section 16 of the printed bill; this is the retirement section of that bill. Mr. Carr testified, from page 18 to page 76 of the hearings a year ago, and testified very fully. The suggestion was made this morning that we could perhaps select from the hearings of last year the things which are pertinent to the present hearings, reprint them as part of the new hearings and spare Mr. Carr and the committee the task of repeating to any great extent what he testified to last year. If that suggestion is acceptable to the committee the principal thing as to which Mr. Carr's assistance would be needed now would be in connection with the proposed substitute for the retirement provision. At all events, if there is no objection, I should like to start the testimony of Mr. Carr to-day with a discussion of the substitute retirement provision and then the committee can decide what it wishes to do thereafter. Will you make your statement, Mr. Carr, if there is no objection, as to the reasons which have prompted the preparation of this substitute?

Mr. Carr. In order that you may understand the origin of section 16 in this bill, it may be well to begin with the first bill on this subject introduced by Mr. Rogers-H. R. 17 of the last Congress. It was proposed in that bill to reenact textually all of the sections of the civil service retirement act known as the act of May 22, 1920, that were applicable to the foreign service and add such additional sections as would provide for the peculiar requirements of the foreign service. Before the consideration of that bill by this committee it was very largely redrafted, especially that part of it relating to retirement, and introduced by Mr. Rogers as a new bill known as H. R. 12543. The bill provides as follows:

The application to foreign service officers of the provisions of the civil service retirement act of May 22, 1920, with the following modifications:

(a) The age of retirement for foreign service officers should be 65 instead of 70 years, as in the case of civil-service employees.

(b) The annuities should be at the rate fixed by the civil service retirement act, but the arbitrary limitation of annuities to a maximum of only $720 should not apply to foreign service officers, because obviously annuities in that amount would be entirely inadequate for the Diplomatic and Consular Service.

(c) For the purposes of computation of annuities of foreign service officers, the period of service should date from the oath of office following original appointment as a diplomatic or consular officer.

(d) The benefits of the bill should accure to any official of the Department of State who subsequent to November 26, 1909, occupied a position of secretary in the Diplomatic Service or any foreignservice officer who might be promoted to the grade of minister.

(e) The rate of deduction for foreign-service officers should be 5 per centum of basic salary instead of 2; per centum, as in the case of civil-service employees.

(f) An appropriation of $50,000 to be authorized for annuities payable during the year 1923.

That bill was considered by this committee, and as you know was. reported favorably as H. R. 13880 and passed by the House of Representatives. In its final form it omitted the authorization of an appropriation of $50,000 for such annuities as should become payable during 1923, but made them payable from the civil-service retirement and disability fund. It also required that in this fund should be deposited the 5 per cent contributions of foreign-service officers. These changes were made, I believe, for reasons of legislative expediency because of conditions existing at the time the bill was reported to the House.

The Federal employees whose contributions had created the civilservice retirement and disability fund and who depend upon that fund for their annuities now and in the future, not unnaturally objected to the provision of the bill which made the larger annuities of foreign-service officers payable out of the civil-service retirement fund even though those officers were to contribute several times as much per man as were other Federal employees themselves. The latter objected to what they regarded as an unwarranted use of their money. It is understood that Representative Lehlbach concurred in the objections of the Federal employees.

Meanwhile, the question of the actuarial soundness of the retirement section now know as section 16 of this bill was submitted to the Government Board of Actuaries. The report of that board concurred in the objections of the Federal employees and advised a separation of the retirement fund for foreign service officers from the civil service retirement and disability fund, and also the administration of the foreign service fund by the Secretary of State.

Therefore the redraft of section 16, to which Mr. Rogers has called attention, represents an attempt to meet the objections to the bill you passed last year, in the following manner:

1. By authorizing the President to prescribe rules and regulations for the establishment of a foreign service retirement and disability system to be administered under the direction of the Secretary of State instead of the Commissioner of Pensions as advised by the Board of Actuaries.

2. By creating, as advised by the Board of Actuaries, a special fund to be known as the “Foreign service retirement and disability fund” from which annuities of foreign service officers shall be paid instead of from the civil service retirement and disability fund.

These two provisions are understood to remove the objections which the Federal employees, Representative Lehlbach, and the board of actuaries have had to H. R. 13880 and H. R. 17 in its present form.

Furthermore, the new draft of section 16 specifically limits the maximum liability of the Government under the bill to an amount

not in excess of the total annual contributions of foreign service officers, which is a step in advance of the existing civil service retirement law, and it requires each annuitant who has not paid to the fund a contribution of 5 per cent of his salary during the entire period of service previous to reaching the retirement age of 65, to have deducted from his annuity such a proportion of 5 per cent of the annuity as the number of years in which he did not contribute bears to the total length of service. The latter is eminently just to the annuitant and is but fair to the Government and to the contributing employees.

Mr. LINTHICUM. I am compelled to leave and I want to see if I can not ask you a question out of order.

Mr. CARR. Will you do so?

Mr. LINTHICUM. Under Mr. Rogers's amendment, the proposed amendment on pages 31 and 32 of the first part of the hearings, I take it that the principal amendment he proposes is that contained in paragraph (0) of section 16, to wit: “Any diplomatic secretary or consular officer who has been, or any foreign-service officer who may hereafter be, promoted from the classified service to the grade of ambassador or minister, or appointed to any official position in the Department of State, shall be entitled to all the benefits of this section in the same manner and under the same conditions as foreign-service officers.

Is not that practically the clause we have stricken out in the last Congress?

Mr. CARR. Yes. That is the clause that has been referred to in the hearings before today as one of the defects in the present bill which should be cured. Mr. Lay spoke of it yesterday. It was stricken from the bill last year for several reasons, one of which was that a man who had risen to the office of ambassador or minister had had sufficient reward and should not be provided with the retirement allowance.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Then there is the question of the salary that an ambassador gets, $17,500, far more than he could get as a consular officer, and then I think the additional question arose as to whether we could pass a bill through the House providing a pension system for minister or ambassador.

Mr. CARR. Yes, that did arise.

Mr. COLE. It would apply only to those who were in the classified service, would it not?

Mr. "Carr. I would like to say concerning this that I earnestly hoped the committee this year will consider the provision favorably. I would not advocate a provision that would base an annuity on a $17,500 salary. I would not advocate a provision for an annuity on a salary of $10,000. I would, however, urge most strongly that the men who have risen by their merit from the classified service for which you are providing in this bill to places much higher and of greater responsibility, be not deprived of the retirement pay, which they have justly earned in the lower grades of the service, and would have received had they remained in positions of lesser responsibility.

Mr. LINTHICUM. What would be their retirement pay under that section? Upon what would their retirement pay be based ?

« PreviousContinue »