Mr. O'CONNELL. When he went back to the classified service he would be given credit with the salary attached to the higher position? Mr. CARR. He should be given credit. Mr. COLE. He would have to pay his premiums or assessments while he was minister on at least $9,000 of his income? Mr. CARR. Exactly so. Mr. COLE. I should think the bill ought to make it clear that a man could accept four years as minister without losing his status in the foreign service? Mr. CARR. I think the President has ample authority under this bill to do it. Mr. O'CONNELL. The point is whether it would have to depend on the Executive authority or not. Mr. MOORES. Referring now to another topic in the Consular Service, where a man goes to one of the tropical posts, does he have any trouble with reference to his insurance? Mr. CARR. Our men have a great deal of trouble with the question of insurance in certain parts of the world, in the Tropics, and out-ofthe-way places like West Africa, Dutch East Indies, and other like places. That is one reason why you should allow, as this bill proposes, time and a half for service there. Mr. MOORES. At such places in the Consular Service at Aden, Liberia, the Gold Coast, Haiti, Straits Settlements does a man forfeit his insurance when he goes to places of that kind? Mr. CARR. I can not say that they actually forfeit it, but I am informed that they have to pay increased rates. Referring now to the subject of separation from the classified service through promotion to the grade of minister, I will read one paragraph of the civil service retirement act, as follows: It is further provided that in computing length of service, for the purposes of this act, all periods of separation from the service and so much of any period of leave of absence as may exceed six months shall be excluded, and that in the case of substitutes in the Postal Service only periods of active employment shall be included. This clearly contemplates separation from Government employment, whereas we have been speaking of employment outside the classified service, but in the same field of activity in a place of greater responsibility. The spirit of this whole act, if it is to be applied to the foreign service by Executive order, or so much of it as is applicable to the foreign service, I think, requires that any period of service in the foreign service of the Government even though outside of the classified part of the foreign service in the grade of minister should be credited to the man, and if the President should want him to come back into the classified service the officer ought to be allowed to return to the classified service and get full credit for all the service he performed. I think that is right and just and I have no doubt whatever that under the provisions of the bill, under the authority of this retirement provision as Mr. Rogers has redrafted it, that could be done. Mr. LINTHICUM. Referring now to the question of probationary appointments, in what section would that come? You say that the President would have sufficient latitude. Would that be under section 5? Mr. CARR (reading): That hereafter appointments to the position of foreign service officer shall be made after examination or, after five years of continuous service therein, by transfer from the Department of State, under such rules and regulations as the President may prescribe: Provided, That no candidate shall be eligible for examination for foreign service officer who is not an American citizen. All appointments of foreign service officers shall be by commission to a class and not by commission to any particular post, and such officers shall be assigned to posts and may be transferred from one post to another by order of the President as the interests of the service may require. I should say that, subject to any restrictions that you have in this act, that the President would be entitled to make regulations consistent with this act as to appointments. At the present time, and that is authority which we are not abridging in any way, the President has power to appoint a consul by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to prescribe the conditions under which he shall be appointed, and, if he wants to fix a probationary period, to terminate that appointment at the end of the probationary period, if the man does not meet the standards fixed, whatever they may be. Mr. LINTHICUM. I recognize the fact that the President can absolutely ignore this whole legislation, but that is not why we are proposing to pass it. We are proposing to pass it because we hope that the President will adhere to it just as he has to previous legislation on this subject. Do you not think, therefore, that we ought to leave some latitude specifically in the bill for such appointments? Mr. CARR. I have no objection to that. Mr. LINTHICUM. If the committee have no objection, will you submit an amendment to that effect? Mr. CARR. If it should be the judgment of the committee to express its view on that subject, I can not see any objection to it. Mr. LINTHICUM. I think the President, when anybody comes to see him about matters of this kind, will refer them to this act.. Mr. CARR. I have no doubt of it. Mr. LINTHICUM. I do not think he is going to deviate from the expressed language of this act, as far as he is concerned. Therefore, I think if we want to leave latitude for that, it ought to be expressed in particular. Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Will you prepare an amendment to give effect to that idea? Mr. CARR. I will endeavor to do so. Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I think we ought to have something in the record this year indicating the additional cost to result from this bill, as far as salary increases are concerned. You discussed that at great length last year, but I think we ought to have something in the record this year as well. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any objection to putting his testimony of last year in? Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I think Mr. Carr can tell us in a sentence or two what the additional cost is going to be, and then, as the chairman suggested yesterday, we could reprint the detailed discussion of last year. It is just as fresh now as it was then. Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, with reference to the question which Mr. Rogers has just asked, on the basis of the 641 officers included in this general scheme, the total salary cost at present for that number of officers is $2,317,000. Under this bill the cost of the same number 84129-24 10 of officers would be $2,807,100. That would be an increase of $495,500. If it should be your pleasure, which I hope it will not be, to do as was proposed last year; that is, upon the passage of this bill, to eliminate the appropriation that is now made for post allowances, $150,000 annually, the net increased cost in salaries would be $345,500, which would be only 16 per cent increase in compensation for both branches of the service. When you come to consider the fact that you are not making at this time an appropriation for representation allowances, and until you do make an appropriation for representation allowances, I hope that you may decide it to be wiser to leave the post allowance appropriation in effect until that time. Mr. COOPER. Will you briefly summarize what you mean by post allowances? as Mr. CARR. The appropriation for post allowances was made by Congress after the war was well on, to provide for the abnormal increase in cost of living in a number of foreign countries. The amount was at first $700,000 a year. Since the end of the war, conditions have somewhat straightened out abroad, it has been gradually reduced to $150,000 a year. It serves a very important purpose. We could not possibly have held our service together without that post allowance during the latter part of the war and the years immediately following the war. Even now I think it would do injury to our service to omit it. I should hope that it might not be omitted. I should hope that it might be, rather, converted into representation allowance, or that some allowance of that sort might always be given to the Department of State to enable it to meet conditions that are abnormal and provide for those things which it is necessary that officers should do in order properly to represent the Government in an effective way. I might say a word also in regard to the bill as it now stands, limiting as it does the representation allowance to the diplomatic representatives in capitals and those consular officers at capitals where no diplomatic officers are stationed. I am quite aware of the reasons which led the committee last year to place that limitation upon the representation allowance. If you find it in your judgment possible or wise this year, I should like to ask you to consider the question of extending that allowance to consular officers everywhere, retaining the discretion in your annual appropriations of making such conservative application of the paragraph in this bill as would keep all expenditures within reason and in accord with your wishes. In the basic law I believe it would be a mistake to make the representation allowance inapplicable to consular officers with the exception of those at capitals where no diplomatic officers are stationed, because I feel that the law will not then accomplish all you desire. I think as time goes on, you will see the wisdom of not only making this allowance, but in increasing amounts. So in the basic law I think it would be much wiser if it could be given general application, to the Consular as well as to the Diplomatic Service. Mr. LINTHICUM. We will have to explain this increase on the floor of the House. I will ask you to place in the record the amount that was received from the Consular Service and also from the Diplolomatic Service, showing what the revenues are, and what that increase has been in the last five years, so that we might be able to show the membership that this branch of the service is practically self-supporting, even with the increase. Mr. CARR. I will insert a statement in my testimony which shows that the income of the State Department foreign service last year totaled $7,981,566.61. The CHAIRMAN. Will you give the items? Mr. CARR. Consular fees, $6,805,579.30; fees for passports issued by the Department of State and abroad to Americans, $1,144,862.63; miscellaneous fees, certifications in the State Department, and various small miscellaneous items, $31,124.68. Mr. COLE. Those are the items that make up the total? Mr. CARR. Yes, a total of $7,981,566.61. The CHAIRMAN. What about the fees for visé of passports? Mr. BROWNE. In which item is that? Mr. CARR. In the consular fees. The CHAIRMAN. The fees for the visé of passports are included in your consular fees, and item number two is for passport fees? Mr. CARR. Issued to our people abroad. The CHAIRMAN. What is miscellaneous? Mr. BROWNE. If the visé fees were cut down, which I understand is contemplated, that would reduce the revenues. Mr. CARR. Somewhat; not as much as you might think. Mr. BROWNE. Two or three million dollars? The CHAIRMAN. No. According to the last estimate, I think it was about $850,000. Mr. COLE. Then the foreign service is an income producer of about $5,000,000 surplus? The CHAIRMAN. Not surplus. It costs about $10,000,000. We raised the passport and visé fees about four years ago. Mr. COOPER. In that connection, can you give us the approximate figures as to the total salary lists, diplomatic and consular? Mr. CARR. I have already given that. I would like now to give you a general statement. In the year 1923, the total cost of all that was done through the State Department in the foreign service, including our obligations to foreign governments, amounted to $14,199,432.72. Out of that, $5,000,000 was our payment to Colombia under treaty; $250,000 was our payment to Panama under treaty, and $573,921.31 were various sundry obligations under treaty and otherwise, making a total of $5,783,931.21, leaving for operation of the State Department, for Diplomatic and Consular Service, a total of only $8,435,501.51. Deducting from this operating expenses the amount of receipts, which I have just given you, namely, $7,981,566.61, there is left the actual cost of the entire foreign service and Department of State in Washington, $455,934.90. There is no other Government service that can touch that record. The CHAIRMAN. We must bear in mind that there is a falling off of the visé fees. Mr. LINTHICUM. We ought not to take into account the $5,000,000 paid to Colombia or the $250,000 paid to Panama. Mr. CARR. They are no part of the operating expenses of the State Department, and I have tried to omit that from consideration. Mr. LINTHICUM. If they had been eliminated, we would have an excess. Mr. CARR. Eliminating them, leaving them out of the account, you have $8,435,501.51 of expenditures against receipts of $7,981,000, so that the actual cost above the cash receipts of the Diplomatic and Consular Service and Department of State in Washington was $453,934.90. I will insert this table in the record. (The table referred to is as follows:) Receipts and expenditures, fiscal year 1923. Mr. LINTHICUM. I think these figures are very important. Mr. CARR. I think it is an excellent showing for the department. Mr. ROGERS of Massachusetts. I have one final question, and that is, whether you regard legislation of this kind as important legislation for the future of our foreign service? Mr. CARR. I can best answer that in this way: In my judgment there have been two really fundamental measures in the entire history of this country for the improvement of the foreign service. The first was in 1856, when a bill was passed, the purpose of the original bill being nearly what this is, but changed in the deliberations in Congress and finally enacted as the law of 1856, which gave form to the diplomatic and consular organization. There have been other bills since. It was not until 1906 that there was another bill which pretended to improve the service, and that bill related wholly to the consular service and was a very excellent measure, and without which this bill could probably not be considered now. But the second measure in all the history of this country in relation to the foreign service, and by far the most important and most far-reaching, is this measure which you have before you. There has not been anything like it since the Government began to exist. In my judgment, if you enact it, you have a bill which will furnish the basic structure of the organization for your foreign service for 50 years, a bill on which you can build any kind of a foreign service you please, a bill on which you can provide for ministers and am |