Mr. CARR. The general statute. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is all right. Mr. CARR. These vehicles are used, I can tell you, where they are using motor-propelled vehicles. They are used in London and Paris. We have an automobile at each embassy, which handles the mail back and forth and does official errands of the embassy, but is not used for passenger use. In Calcutta and two or three other places, in very hot countries, we have for years been supplying horse-drawn vehicles, for the simple reason that there is no other means of locomotion. We have had that before the committees of Congress a number of times, and there is no means of locomotion, I mean, there is no means of local travel there. Our officers can not travel on the street cars, because officers do not do that in those countries. The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. Mr. CARR. Congress' has been providing for that. The CHAIRMAN. The only thing that prompted me to ask that question, was because in most of our appropriations we make provision with reference to motor-propelled vehicles, we put in a condition, for official business. Mr. CARR. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That is not in here. Senator MCKELLAR. That ought to be. The CHAIRMAN. You say that the general statute carries a provision with reference to this? Mr. CARR. This is passenger-carrying vehicles. Senator BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I submit that there is quite a difference. The temptation in Washington, for instance, to use Government vehicles for making calls and going to ball games is very great, and that is a very wise thing to do here, but when our people are abroad, for the State Department, so far as the Consular and Diplomatic Service is concerned, they are constantly representing us, even when they go to a ball game. It may be that the Comptroller might not think that that is official business, but on the other hand, if they did not go it might be that that would be regarded as a lack of courtesy to the people concerned. After all, it is a little bit different. Senator MOSES. And they would not go at all if they were not a part of the official mission. Senator BINGHAM. That is a part of their official duties, whereas here in Washington, it would not be a part of their official duties. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think that that is a matter to be taken into consideration. I thought that possibly the conditions abroad were different from what they are at home, and I wanted to bring out that fact. Mr. CARR. I might suggest, Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. I have never been abroad. Mr. CARR. We are probably almost alone among the principal governments of the world in not providing automobiles for our chiefs of mission, and for our principal consular officials at given points. Nearly every other government provides automobile service for their chiefs of missions and principal consular officers. REPRESENTATION ALLOWANCES Senator MCKELLAR. Are the budgets of other governments as great as ours; foreign budgets, of the other governments, as great as ours? How do they compare? Would you mind getting that figure and putting it on the record? Mr. CARR. On this form of service, of course, I think that they are more generous. Senator MCKELLAR. Well, let us have it. Mr. CARR. We have a larger service, so that the total amount of the budget, I do not think is as great. Senator MCKELLAR. Well, give us the figures, so that there would be a comparison. I would be glad to have it; I would like to see it, because we are met every year with the statement that we are not doing for our people abroad what should be done. Now, if you will just make a statement which will show, a comparative statement, which will show the facts, I would appreciate it. Mr. CARR. I will get you the best information I can. Mr. CARR. It may take a little while, but I can say with reference to this question of representation allowance, which you have in this bill, there is a statement which I filed with the House which shows a comparison of what we are doing with what the other governments. do in that regard, in which I am speaking now. The CHAIRMAN. Let me say this in connection with the military bill hearings, we find that there are military attachés of our Government and military attachés of other governments. It was shown that our allowance for our military attachés is only about half what other governments allow theirs. Mr. CARR. I should imagine so. The CHAIRMAN. For entertainment, and so on. Mr. CARR. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I have no doubt that that is true in connection with the State Department. Senator MCKELLAR. Let us get it from Mr. Carr. Senator BINGHAM. It would be very interesting, if we could have the facts, to find out what the British and French Governments pay their representatives. Pick out representative governments, and we can compare them and see what they do. We can compare them with what we pay representatives to their governments to very much more advantage. I have heard that right here in Washington, the ambassadors from those governments get very much larger salaries to spend here than our ambassadors get to spend in their capitals. Mr. CARR. Just one instance; I can give one outstanding instance, in this capital. Our ambassador in London receives a salary of $17,500 and a representation allowance of $5,000 and a house. That is $22,500. The British ambassador in Washington gets a house--a very much more elaborate one than we have in London-and he gets a salary of $12,000, and a representation allowance of about $75,000 or $80,000 per annum. His total compensation is up to about $87,000 to $92,000, in comparison with our $22,500 in London. That will give you a pretty fair idea of the way this thing runs. Senator MCKELLAR. What does he pay out of that? Mr. CARR. He pays Senator MCKELLAR. Does he pay for the maintenance of his house out of it? Mr. CARR. No, sir; the house is maintained. All he pays is entertainment, his various expenses, that go into representation. Senator BINGHAM. Is it not true, Mr. Carr, that no one except a very rich man, who is willing to spend a very large amount of his own money, can possibly accept the embassy in London? Mr. CARR. There is no question about it. Senator BINGHAM. London or Paris. Mr. CARR. London, or Paris, or Berlin. Senator MOSES. Anywhere they go, they have got to spend more money than they get. We know that. The CHAIRMAN. The next item, Mr. Carr. RENT, HEAT, FUEL, AND LIGHT, FOREIGN SERVICE Mr. CARR. The next item is on page 14, line 23. The CHAIRMAN. Page 14, line 23? Mr. CARR. Yes, sir. And, we would like to have The CHAIRMAN. You are asking for the Budget figures? Mr. CARR. Yes, sir; $67,227 more than the amount passed by the House. The reason for that is, in that amount, $67,227 increase there is $3,800 for the Consul General for the Government-rented building in Shanghai. There is a normal yearly increase of $20,000 for the cost of rental of offices in the Foreign Service. Senator McKELLAR. How much is that? Mr. CARR. $20,000; there is $16,577 for heat and light increases in Government-owned buildings, and Government-rented buildings for the residences of our officers, and there is a proposed $26,850 increase for rentals for ambassadors and ministers. SHANGHAI, RENTALS Taking up the first question, the Shanghai rental first: In 1928 the department undertook to make inquiries as to the availability of outside quarters for the consulate general and the United States Court during the erection of a new Government-owned building, in which to house those activities. We were told that it would cost about $65,000 to house the various activities, and an estimate was prepared for submission to Congress, but the Secretary withdrew it on account of delay in starting construction of new buildings. Early in 1929, when the estimates for 1931 were prepared, it was then indicated that on account of favorable exchange rates we might get a building for $52,000. We estimated for $52,000, and the amount was appropriated in our contingent fund. Then, we found that when we signed the contract for the building, the only building that we could get would be the Hotel, which is large enough to house all of our activities, and the lowest rental we could get on that was $55,800. The CHAIRMAN. Fifty-five thousand and what? Mr. CARR. $800, which is $3,800 less than the amount which you had provided us for a building. Now, then, we have had only a part year on that, so that $52,000 for 1931 is enough, but we ought to have $55,800 for 1932. The CHAIRMAN. You think that your rental expenses will be as high in the next year as they have been? Mr. CARR. It is the same building, sir; and The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I know that. Mr. CARR. And, we are under contract to pay $55,800. Mr. CARR. The new building, they are just, I think, about ready to begin. They are tearing down the old one. Senator BINGHAM. They are tearing down the place where the United States Court used to be held, and also where the consulate was. Mr. CARR. Yes; and on that site they are going to erect a new building authorized by the Foreign Service Building Commission. Senator MCKELLAR. It ought to be completed this year? Mr. CARR. NO; I don't think it will be completed for two years. Mr. CARR. I think that I can not tell you that. Of course, it can only go from fiscal year to fiscal year, because we have got a contract-yes; it must be a contract for two years, I am sure. The CHAIRMAN. So that you think you need this $55,000? The CHAIRMAN. To take care of this contract? Mr. CARR. To take care of the contract. If it is not appropriated, then we will have to reduce somewhere else, and take the money away from somebody else in order to carry out that contract, because that is the only place in which we can take care of our agencies in Shanghai. Senator BINGHAM. That houses all of the agencies? Mr. CARR. That houses all of the agencies, except the minister. Senator BINGHAM. Does it house the Commerce Department's people too? Mr. CARR. It houses the Commerce people too. Senator BINGHAM. So that you will save money on the rental buildings, by using that building? Mr. CARR. I think so, Senator. I say, that I think that they will be in the same building. Senator BINGHAM. The Commerce Department attachés, I think, are in a separate building, another quite separate building. Mr. CARR. Maybe so, Senator, but we will house, I know, in this building, the consul general and the Public Health officers, and so forth. Senator MCKELLAR. Must they stay in Shanghai, live in Shanghai? Mr. CARR. The minister is in Shanghai a part of the time; in Peking a part of the time, Shanghai a part of the time, and Nanking, depending on where the Government happens to be. Senator BINGAHM. It is a very difficult situation. Mr. CARR. Exceedingly. Senator BINGHAM. And you will find the Government officials in Shanghai, and they travel a thousand miles away to Nanking. There is no place to live at Nanking. Most of the Chinese officials live in Shanghai and do business in Nanking. Mr. CARR. As a matter of fact we are now trying to find out whether we can spend our present contingent allowance for some temporary building, whether we can get some money out of the build Mr. CARR. He pays Senator MCKELLAR. Does he pay for the maintenance of his house out of it? Mr. CARR. No, sir; the house is maintained. All he pays is entertainment, his various expenses, that go into representation. Senator BINGHAM. Is it not true, Mr. Carr, that no one except a very rich man, who is willing to spend a very large amount of his own money, can possibly accept the embassy in London? Mr. CARR. There is no question about it. Mr. CARR. London, or Paris, or Berlin. Senator MOSES. Anywhere they go, they have got to spend more money than they get. We know that. The CHAIRMAN. The next item, Mr. Carr. RENT, HEAT, FUEL, AND LIGHT, FOREIGN SERVICE Mr. CARR. The next item is on page 14, line 23. Mr. CARR. Yes, sir. And, we would like to have Mr. CARR. Yes, sir; $67,227 more than the amount passed by the House. The reason for that is, in that amount, $67,227 increase there is $3,800 for the Consul General for the Government-rented building in Shanghai. There is a normal yearly increase of $20,000 for the cost of rental of offices in the Foreign Service. Senator McKELLAR. How much is that? Mr. CARR. $20,000; there is $16,577 for heat and light increases in Government-owned buildings, and Government-rented buildings for the residences of our officers, and there is a proposed $26,850 increase for rentals for ambassadors and ministers. SHANGHAI, RENTALS Taking up the first question, the Shanghai rental first: In 1928 the department undertook to make inquiries as to the availability of outside quarters for the consulate general and the United States Court during the erection of a new Government-owned building, in which to house those activities. We were told that it would cost about $65,000 to house the various activities, and an estimate was prepared for submission to Congress, but the Secretary withdrew it on account of delay in starting construction of new buildings. Early in 1929, when the estimates for 1931 were prepared, it was then indicated that on account of favorable exchange rates we might get a building for $52,000. We estimated for $52,000, and the amount was appropriated in our contingent fund. Then, we found that when we signed the contract for the building, the only building that we could get would be the Hotel, which is large enough to house all of our activities, and the lowest rental we could get on that was $55,800. The CHAIRMAN. Fifty-five thousand and what? Mr. CARR. $800, which is $3,800 less than the amount which you had provided us for a building. |