by the Veterans' Administration, the War Department, or the Navy Department, the wives of such service-connected disabled ex-service men that have themselves been unable to qualify for any civil-service appointment, and the unmarried widows of ex-service men who have served in any branch of the armed forces of the United States during any war or any campaign or expedition.

Section 4 of H. R. 5101 provides that—

in all examinations for appointment, disabled veterans, widows, and preference wives, have 10 points added to their earned ratings, and all veterans shall have 5 points added to their earned ratings: Provided, That without the addition of said points, they shall have made a passing grade.

In H. R. 5147, the passing grade may be made with the addition of the 10 points, whereas in H. R. 5101 they are required to make a passing grade before the additional points are added to their earned ratings.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that we should give them the 10 points notwithstanding their failure to make a passing grade?

Mr. RICE. Yes. H. R. 5147 would give them such points to start with. We feel that they are entitled to them, and H. R. 5147 would start them off with the 5 or 10 points.

Mr. MILLS. I would like to have the gentleman's reasons why we should do that.

Mr. RICE. I would be repeating myself to tell you, but I will say, as I said previously, that those who have had service in the armed forces of the United States, and therefore have been previous employees of the Federal Government, we assume that they acquired some experience, that is on the average, and we assume that that experience is valuable for remployment. We believe that those who have had service in the armed forces of the United States did acquire such characteristics, generally speaking, as discipline, loyalty, ability to cooperate with others, and ability to go forward toward the same objective and work in unison with others, and have resourcefulness and stability; also a very good sense of Americanism.

I do not mean to derogate the sense of Americanism of those who have not had military service, but I think those who have had military service have had ingrained in them, particularly strong, those characteristics and factors which cannot be measured by civil-service examinations. You cannot devise any kind of civil-service examination which would measure such characteristics and factors, which would be valuable. There are many things which are exceedingly valuable in an employee which cannot be measured by a civil-service examination.

For example, ability to cooperate with others is an exceedingly important qualification. If a person cannot cooperate with those in the same office with him, it leads to all kinds of difficulties within that service and that cannot be determined by a civil-service examination. Mr. KITCHENS. This bill, H. R. 5101, requires a man to make a passing grade first.

Mr. RICE. That is right.

Mr. KITCHENS. If he does not make the passing grade, he is out. Mr. RICE. He does not get the 5 or 10 points, under H. R. 5101.

Mr. KITCHENS. And yet the 5 or 10 points give him the preference which will enable him to get in the eligible list regardless.

Mr. RICE. That is right.

Mr. STARNES. Not regardless, if his earned rating will bring him up to the passing rate of 70.

Mr. RICE. If he gets 65 on his earned rating and then receives 5 points, that makes 70 and then he has a passing grade, under H. R. 5147.

The CHAIRMAN. You have had a lot of experience and know that veterans usually get what they are entitled to and I think you did a good job for your organization, but I want to ask you this question: Haven't you found that that very thing is one of the very reasons for the resistance of the appointing officers of the Federal Government to the veterans?

Mr. RICE. I think it is set forth as an excuse, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. It does work against the veterans getting positions, doesn't it?

Mr. RICE. I think that those who do not extend the same degree of appointment to veterans that they do to nonveterans, use that as a justification for not doing so, but I do not think that is the actual

reason.

Mr. MOSER. If you say it is used as an excuse, wouldn't that be used as resistance?

Mr. RICE. I want to point out this, Congressman, that the number of veterans passed over is much greater than the number of those who fail to have an earned rating of 70 without the 5 or 10 points added, particularly is that so in those agencies that have appointed a very small percentage of veterans. I would like to submit a table of statistics which will show the percentage of veterans going down from the more important agencies and we find that the agency that is charged with this duty, the Civil Service Commission, has appointed the smallest percentage of veterans among the total number of its appointees. That is, they use a smaller percentage of veterans than does any other larger department or agency.

The Civil Service Commission can do this without violating any rules or Executive orders.

Then if we turn to another chart, that shows the number of 5-point and 10-point veterans, as compared with the number of nonveterans which they skipped over. I would like to have the privilege of submitting these tables, Mr. Chairman, and I will bring them up to date. The CHAIRMAN. The tables referred to may be submitted for the record.

(The tables above referred to are as follows:)

Percentage of preference eligibles appointed to civil-service positions in all Federal agencies for the fiscal years 1932 to 1938 inclusive

Total appointments by all agencies-10-point preference 5-point preference Total preference Nonprefappointments appointments appointments

erence ap

pointments

Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent (percent)

Appointing

Over 50..
Under 50..

Total..

Percentage of preference eligibles appointed to civil-service positions in the several agencies for the fiscal years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938

[Basic statistics in official reports of the Civil Service Commission were used in compiling table]

Percentage of preference eligibles appointed to civil-service positions in the several agencies for the fiscal years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938

Total number of civil-service appointments by agencies with percentage of 10-point preference eligibles, 5-point preference eligibles, and all preference eligibles appointed, for fiscal years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938

[Basic statistics taken from official reports of the United States Civil Service Commission]

Comparison of number of preference eligibles appointed to number passed over and appointed, in 10-point, 5-point, and nonpreference groups

FOR ALL FEDERAL UNITS FOR LAST 7 FISCAL YEARS

Mr. MOSER. Mr. Rice probably knows that Mr. Harrington said he would not appoint any and I would like to have Mr. Rice's statement in regard to that.

Mr. RICE. They have not violated any rules or regulations at all. But they apparently decided that they did not want veterans except those who had extraordinarily high, classic, collegiate qualifications. Perhaps there is some excuse for it in the Civil Service Commission, because those men are used almost exclusively for marking papers. I am not trying to be critical but I am discussing the point that an agency such as that can justify their position if they decide to do so. Mr. MILLS. Mr. Rice, does the President's Executive order provide any recourse for a veteran when he has been disallowed, or not been considered, or given a position when he is on the list?

The CHAIRMAN. No; there is no effective recourse because the only thing required is that the appointing officer shall file a statement with the Civil Service Commission of his reasons for passing over a veteran three times on the eligible list; but that reason is not to be made public and can only be examined by the veteran if the appointing officer consents.

Mr. MILLS. Do you not think that if section 16 of H. R. 5101 were effective, that that would greatly improve the condition of the veterans and give them the remedy they now desire?

The CHAIRMAN. I think section 16 of H. R. 5101 is perhaps the most valuable thing in the bill for the reason that I think that those people who may be disposed to not appoint veterans have a perfect method of avoiding it now, because they are not required to give a reason that anybody can examine and which may be answered by the veteran. It probably will result in bringing to the surface the objections of the appointing officer due to the fact that the veteran now is not required to make a passing point. This section would bring it out in the open.

Mr. RICE. It provides in section 16 of H. R. 5147, "that any official or employee of any department, establishment, agency, bureau, administration, or project of the Federal Government or of the District of Columbia, shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be summarily removed from office."

Section 7 of H. R. 5147 takes care of the certification of the three highest names available for appointment on such register, which I think is an important thing and it is different from the language used in section 9 of the Legion bill.

The method of requiring an appointing officer to submit in writng to the Civil Service Commission a detailed explanation of the reasons for passing over a veteran's name as provided in section 7 of H. R. 5147, is very important, perhaps the most important provision in the bill, particularly in making the findings available to the veteran or his representative. It is very much the same in both bills except that in our bill, H. R. 5147, we would provide that a veteran should remain eligible until reappointed without regard to the life of the register and also that his name should remain on the register until his name had been passed over three times with good reasons substantiated and agreed to by the Civil Service Commission.

In other words, if the Civil Service Commission agrees that the appointing officer has submitted good reasons for skipping over the name of a veteran on three different occasions, then his name shall

149713-39-5