thereafter be dropped from the register. That is not in H. R. 5101, and I think it should be there. It would make it somewhat more effective.

Now, going back to section 4 of H. R. 5147, there is some additional language in there as compared with the language of section 6, which I think would be very valuable, and I do not think there could be any particular disagreement about it.

In section 4 we provide that

in determining the qualifications of a veteran applicant for original examination, appointment, promotion, retention, transfer, or reinstatement, all requirements, as to age, height, weight, physical condition, education or background, previous specified instruction, or the attainment of any degree or certificate from an educational institution, shall be waived by the Civil Service Commission, or other examining agency, and any such applicant's qualifications shall be determined upon the basis of his actual knowledge and ability to perform the duties of the position to be filled.

That is deemed to be particularly important and we feel that it should be true not only as to the original examination, but also as to transfers, promotions, and reinstatements, that should be true from that time on.

For example, there are several agencies that provide that a man shall not be eligible for taking a so-called noncompetitive promotion examination if he has passed the age of 35. That is true in the Post Office Department. You cannot take examination for post-office inspector if you have passed the age of 35, but a man who is occupying a position in that classification can retain it until the age of retirement. Such things as that are not consistent. A man cannot take an examination to become an inspector of the Bureau of Customs after passing the age of 45, but an inspector can occupy that position until the age of retirement. It is our contention that a man should be entitled to take the examination for positions irrespective of age if he is qualified.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they not have age limitations in the Army, Mr. Rice?

Mr. RICE. Yes, they do.

The CHAIRMAN. In the Navy?

Mr. RICE. Yes, they do.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you object to those?

Mr. RICE. I do; if a man is qualified his age should not be a factor. Of course, some men are old at 40 and some are not old at 80. Age is not a criterion of a man's youth or senility, but it is the state of health which determines it. At this point I insert an analysis published by Mr. George D. Riley in his U. S. and Us column in the May 3, 1939, issue of the Washington Times-Herald, as follows:

EXECUTIVE ORDER MORE EFFECTIVE

This is Be-Kind-to-Those-Past-40 Week. The President has issued a proclamation setting aside this one week as Employment Week. He says:

"I am mindful of the fact that among those over 40 years of age are a great body of our most experienced, able and competent workers; that this group as a whole is not sharing as fully as other age groups in the employment revival

The President, however, apparently is unmindful of Federal personnel practices and policies of the United States Civil Service Commission and appointing officers. It is known that age 40 bars from 52 percent of the examinations for jobs paying less than $2,000; from 38 percent of the jobs paying $2,000 to $2,500; from 47 percent of the jobs paying from $2,500 to $3,000.

Age 40 bars from 28 percent of the examinations without regard to salary levels. Forty-nine percent of the assembled examinations are not for the "old." Yet nearly 60 percent of those in the service (57.5 percent) have passed the 40 mark. It is apparent therefore that one must grow old in the service, not be recruited so. Eighty-two percent are appointed under the 40-year mark and thus only 18 percent at 40 or later. With women, 88 percent are recruited under 40.

Those past 40 in fact all in civil service have been termed "dodoes."

The President 2 years ago called upon industry to hire after 40, but his own administrative officers have run mattres just as they deem best. Department of Labor says, "The practice of setting age limits in public employment does constitute an artificial and unjustifiable limitation and does set an undesirable example to private industry.' The Department urges appointing officers throughout the Government to make appointments and reinstatements solely on the basis of qualifications and without regard to age. The Department even makes so bold as to suggest that "new types of examinations and study of modern examining techniques will minimize the cost of examining and assure greater fairness to older applicants, while allowing the Government to choose personnel from a wider range of persons with ability.

Now either the President is incorrect in his premise or his administrative officers are correct, if present practice is social. In any event a conference seems indicated between the President, the professors who actually make the administrative policies and appointing officers, who take orders from the policy-makers to compose a common story on what to say and what to do about this matter. In fact, an Executive order, not a proclamation, would put in force just what the President says in his proclamation he wants.

The President wants one thing. Industry follows suit. tive branches of Government decide and do as they wish.

However, administra-
Illustration:

Statistics compiled and reported by National Industrial Conference Board.

This is a multilateral issue. The fact that applicants are barred at arbitrary ages, next leads to promotions forbidden to those past certain ages and forced retirement even before the statutory ages.

Mr. MILLS. If it is not out of order I would like to ask the gentleman if he would not submit about three pages of explanation or rather a comparison of these bills. I would like to have it for the record. As I fear we will adjourn before he can complete his statement.

Mr. STARNES. I hope Mr. Rice can complete his full statement today.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have him do it.

Mr. RICE. Section 5 of H. R. 5147 does not appear in H. R. 5101. We think it is important because it would in effect provide that a veteran could have credit on his application for experience where he was not paid for that experience. We have many veterans in the Veterans of Foreign Wars and other organizations who have given hours and hours of time each week for many years as service officers and welfare officers. They have acquired a valuable experience and it cannot be evaluated for civil-service purposes, but we think it

should be included. It is not of primary importance but it is important to keep in mind because it might affect their status sometime. Mr. BECKWORTH. On this age proposition, do I understand that there is a provision in this bill giving the veterans preference irrespective of the age requirement?

Mr. RICE. Yes; in section 4 of H. R. 5147 it is provided that the age shall be waived where the veteran is otherwise qualified.

Now, in section 6 of H. R. 5147, it provides that the 10-point preference eligibles shall be placed at the top of the appropriate Civil Service register or employment lists according to their relative ratings and that next in order on such appropriate civil-service registers or employment lists, shall be the names of all honorably discharged ex-service men whose service in any branch of the armed forces of the United States during any war, or in any campaign or expedition, for which a campaign badge has been authorized, according to their relative ratings; and that next in order on such Civil Service registers or employment lists, shall be the names of all other eligibles according to their relative ratings.

The

The Legion bill does not contain any comparative provision. Executive order provides that the 10 points shall put disabled veterans at the top of the register. Now, we believe that that should be retained in the law and it should be specifically provided for in the law and not merely be left to Executive order.

The CHAIRMAN. On that point, Mr. Rice, haven't you also found from experience, that that is one of the reasons for resistance to veterans' preference on the part of the appointing officer?

Mr. RICE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It means, of course, that a man who makes 60 with service-connection, with the 60 he gets 10, because he is a serviceconnected veteran he goes above a non-veteran who makes 100. Mr. RICE. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think that creates a very definite resistance on the part of the appointing officer?

Mr. RICE. I think it does. I think there are those who feel that a man is not as well qualified and therefore they will appoint somebody else low on the register, but they will have an opportunity to appoint him lower on the register in any event under the provisions of section 7 of H. R. 5147. We do not insist that a man not qualified should be appointed but if qualified he should be appointed and we do not believe that the civil-service examination can so accurately determine the qualifications of the man on the basis of the general points touched upon in the examinations.

It gives a very definite preference to recent college graduates, and I am not speaking with any passion about it, because I am a college graduate myself. But a recently graduated applicant can answer questions more easily than a man who has not been in touch with those things for many years, although the latter's qualifications might actually be superior. The latter might be better qualified for a particular job and therefore I do not attach any great importance to the particular difference in capacity between the various applicants who secured a passing mark and others who do not.

We think it is important that the disabled veterans of the country should be placed at the top of the register.

There is another thing about disabled veterans. They have all gone through the war and are inclined to be more nervous, and when they take civil-service examinations, they are inclined to be more excited, and therefore cannot acquire as good and earned rating as persons who have recently come through college and have had an opportunity to become acquainted with that method of examination. The same thing is true as to older persons; older persons are not in a position to answer specific questions that might be asked in the civil-service examinations as ably as a recent college graduate.

We do not believe that we should volunteer to give up something which is now provided for the service-disabled veterans. We believe it should be guaranteed to them by law. If they are not qualified for the job they can be eliminated, but the provisions of the bill are definitely stated and if their name is skipped over, there must be an adequate reason submitted to the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission should agree that it is a good reason.

However, if the Commission does not feel that it is a good reason, the appointing officer does not have to appoint No. 1 on the register. It is merely an impartial review by the Civil Service Commission that is placed in the way. There must be a reason submitted and it must be passed on by the Civil Service Commission, which must be made available to the veteran or his designated representative, but the Civil Service Commission can still have authority to pass over the name. It merely has to go through that process, which we believe is a constitutional process.

The point that I want to make is that the appointing officer is not compelled to appoint somebody who is not qualified for the particular job. We would place war veterans next on the register and they are not now next on the register because we believe that veterans' preference can be justified on all grounds. If justifiable then it should be made effective. It is not now really effective.

Veterans are getting the credit-or blame for getting preferences which they are not getting. They are getting the preference mostly on low rate jobs, such as guards. They are not getting preference in the higher classifications of jobs because of the loopholes which are now in effect in the Executive orders.

I think there is some uncalled for resentment to veterans' preference, principally because there are so many citizens who themselves desire appointment to those jobs. If they were all employed they would have no resentment whatsoever against the veterans who are getting preference, but as it is a matter of bread and butter, naturally, they want it, and whether a veteran or nonveteran gets it, they nevertheless do not feel just right about it. I do not feel that there is any resentment against veterans as such, but only where they happen to be the persons who happen to get the appointments.

Therefore, we propose that war veterans be placed next on the register after the 10-point preference veterans in order that preferences can really be made effective.

There is another section in the bill which will enable us to dispose of employees for the good of the cause who are not properly qualified for performing the duties properly. Veterans do not want unqualified veterans to be on the job. We want qualified veterans on the job because when a man is not qualified he tends to disgrace and discredit the system of veterans' preference, and so we want a qualified man to be on the job in every instance.

I pointed out that section 9 of the Legion bill (H. R. 5101) is incorporated in section 7 of the bill H. R. 5147, and that section 7 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars bill also includes section 16 of the Legion bill.

We believe the language in H. R. 5147 is preferable.

Section 10 of the Legion (H. R. 5101) does not have a comparable provision in the Veterans of Foreign Wars bill (H. R. 5147), and it might be desirable to put in H. R. 5147 a section relating to the unclassified Federal and District of Columbia civil service.

I think that section 1 of H. R. 5147 very specifically does provide that preference in regard to all appointments shall be given to the ex-service men first in all permanent or temporary agencies or establishments, or in any department, bureau, administration, or project of the United States Government, and to that you could include section 10 of H. R. 5101 to apply to the unclassified Federal and District of Columbia, which would make it more specific.

I have already discussed section 7 of H. R. 5147, which we consider to be perhaps the most important section in the bill.

Mr. MILLS. What number is that section?

I

Mr. RICE. It is section No. 7 of H. R. 5147, relative to the necessity of giving an explanation for skipping over the name of a veteran. explained that that section provides for the appointing officer, who skips over the name of a veteran, shall send his written reasons for so doing to the Civil Service Commission, and that record shall be made available upon request to the veteran or his representative. We think that is the most important point in the bill.

Section 8 of H. R. 5147 is the section which would provide for the quarterly examinations to all of the 10-point preference persons and the so-called veterans of the regular establishments who have had 6 years or more service in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps. I have already discussed that particular point and will not say any more about it unless someone wishes to ask any questions concerning it.

The last provision of section 8 I think is important as it provides

that

the names of the resulting eligibles shall be entered on appropriate existing, or new, registers in the relative order as provided for by section 6 hereof.

That is, disabled veterans at the top of the register, than war, campaign, and expedition veterans.

Section 9 would provide

That no preference eligible employed by any department, establishment, agency, bureau, administration, or project of the Federal Government, or of the District of Columbia, shall be dismissed, suspended, furloughed without pay, or reduced in rank or compensation, except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of such service, and except as provided for in section 10 hereof; the preference eligible whose removal, suspension, furlough without pay, or reduction in rank or compensation is sought shall have at least 30 days' advance written notice (except where guilty of a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment can be imposed), stating any and all reasons, specifically and in detail, for any such proposed action; shall preference eligible be allowed a reasonable time for answering the same personally and in writing, and for furnishing affidavits in support of such answer, and shall have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission from an adverse decision of the administrative officer so acting, such appeal to be made in writing within a reasonable length of time after the date of receipt of notice of such adverse decision: Provided, That such preference eligible shall have the right to make a personal appearance, or an appearance to a designated representative, in accordance with such reasonable rules and regulations as may be issued by the Civil Service Commission; after investigation and consideration of