the United States. As a result thereof, there was a rise-up of veterans in that agency and a bill was presented in the House, I believe, which was favorably reported, to set aside that examination and hold a new examination so that the veterans at large throughout the United States would have an opportunity to compete. This is just another illustration of what would happen.

I am advised that that bill has passed the House and is pending before the Senate.

Mr. LATIMER. There is a companion bill in the Senate.

Mr. JACOBI. I point that out as an illustration of what would happen when you are permitted to select men for certain examinations, eliminating others in competition.

Now we come to section 8 (2). Section 8 (2) relating to the authorization for category ratings is one of the major objections of the American Legion for the reasons that: (1) It is not necessary, because under existing law the Commission may apply selective certification to fill high-level positions where selection of applicants having special qualifications is warranted. As we understand it, the Hoover Commission, in its report, stated that that was one of the reasons for the qualification category. Well, if that is the only reason, then the Commission has that authority today without specifically providing for it in this bill.

(2) To give an applicant no more opportunity to show his relative merit in competition among numerous applicants than a general placement by some agency rating officer in one of three categories is not only unfair but will destroy the principle of the competitive civil service merit system.

(3) Coupled together with decentralization the category rating system places so much authority in the hands of the agency operating an employment plan that undetectable personal and political patronage would be inevitable.

I again here refer to my exhibit A, John Cramer's article, which is based on fact. Now, if you are going to further decentralize throughout the United States so that anyone in that position can discriminate against the veterans, certainly it is unfair to the veterans at large. We oppose that most strenuously.

Section 9, relating to the amendments to the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 to provide for the category rating system, is opposed not only on the same basis as expressed in reference to section 8 above, but also by reason of the American Legion's mandated position of militant opposition to any proposal to minimize or take away any preference to veterans in Federal employment now provided for in the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944.

Section 9 (c) relating to an amendment of section 8 of the Veterans' Preference Act, is objectionable for the reasons that: (1) (concerning section 8 (b)) If appointments are to be made on the basis of open competition and relative merit under the numerical rating system, we can see no necessity for the expansion of the rule of three.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I wish to place in evidence my exhibit B, which involves a summary of the proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual National Convention of the American Legion, pointing specifically to page 64 thereof where the resolutions referred to are contained.

(Summary of proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual National Convention of the American Legion, p. 64, was marked "Exhibit B," and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT B

VETERANS' PREFERENCE

Too much emphasis cannot be stressed by this convention on the imperative necessity of militant action on the part of the American Legion in resisting efforts to reduce the veterans' preference benefits provided in the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944.

At no time since the close of the war has so strong an effort been made to change the veterans' preference laws as exists at this time. It is a wellorganized and well-financed drive that will require the full resources of the American Legion if these attacks on veterans' preference are to be defeated. Many bills are now pending in Congress seeking to change the veterans' preference law to the disadvantage of the veteran. The American Legion took the major part in the drafting of the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, which was adopted in connection with our drive for the drafting and enactment of the GI bill. It was part of our over-all program to provide readjustment for war veterans. The Veterans' Preference Act was finally adopted after lengthy deliberation by the Congress of the United States. It was adopted in wartime and constituted a contract with our veterans who were then serving in a war which was then far from being won. We consider it comes with poor grace to now change these benefits in peacetime that were granted in wartime. Ten resolutions have been presented to your committee emphatically opposing changes in the Veterans' Preference Act. These 10 resolutions are as follows: Nos. 4, 82, 362, 435, 459, 460, 491, 497, 564, 595.

Your committee recommends the adoption of Rewrite Resolution No. 4. The other resolutions being consolidated therein, Resolution No. 4 is as follows:

"Whereas the Congress of the United States has gratefully accorded to the veterans certain preferences in Federal employment because of their war service since 1865; and

"Whereas, in 1944, during a period of war, Congress enacted the Veterans' Preference Act (Public Law 359, 78th Cong.), which brought into one act all provisions previously accorded to veterans in recognition of the economic loss suffered by persons who have served their country in time of war; and

"Whereas repeated attempts are being made to reduce or destroy the preference given to veterans by virtue of Public Law 359, Seventy-eighth Congress; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the American Legion in national convention assembled at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 29, 30, 31, and September 1, 1949, take a militant attitude in demanding that the United States Civil Service Commission adminster the provisions of the Veterans' Preference Act and see to it that the heads of departments and agencies follow the intent and letter of the law; and, be it further

"Resolved, That the American Legion does hereby record itself as opposing and condemning in every particular and without compromise, the Langer bill, Klein bill, Hoover report and all other similar measures as being antiveteran and disruptive of the Federal service; and be it further

"Resolved, That this expressed position be circularized to the various departments and agencies and to the Congress.

Mr. JACOBI. Under this provision they want to allow the highest five eligibles to be made available for appointment on certification. They are speaking about merit. The rule of three is certainly ample for the purpose.

(2) Concerning section 8 (c), the proposal to select from the highest five eligibles for each vacancy in the category system is meaningless because there is no suggestion made as to how one might determine which five would be considered as the highest five, except for the provisions that veterans would be considered first. Conceivably, the appointing officer could select any one of the eligibles within a particular

category which is exactly what the proponents of the Hoover Commission recommendations have been asking for.

Suppose there were 5 veterans or 10 veterans at the top of any category, how would the appointing officer select the 5 that he feels would be eligible for these jobs when there is no numerical rating system in effect, only a category system. Therefore, this category system is meaningless as applied to the appointment of the five eligibles at the top of the list.

We say to you again, putting that section along with this decentralization where the Civil Service Commission will not have constant inspections, direct control over these things, you will have men who have qualified and possibly are entitled to the job who will not get it and certainly the veterans will be the greatest sufferers.

We know-and I have said this previously before the House committee and this committee-that there is a tendency among many people in the Government employ to discriminate against the veteran. We have had numerous instances of that presented to us. If they are given the opportunity upon examination to place these veterans in any category, qualified, exceptionally well qualified, or well qualified, we feel sure that these parties will put them in the qualified category, which is the third highest category, so that they never will be appointed to the position even though they may be at the top of the list in that category.

As I say, if you have, according to this section, the privilege of taking five, how are they going to select the five, even if they are going to be honest about it, when there is no numerical rating to put them in the classification of one, two, three, four, or five.

In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we submit that Congress in the consideration of this legislation must look beyond the philosophical theories advanced by the proponents and recognize, as the American Legion and other major veteran organizations have done, that by decentralizing recruiting and examining functions and permitting the acceptance of a category rating system, we will be opening the door to a well-calculated movement designed for the sole purpose of circumventing the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 and destroying the effectiveness of the Civil Service Commission. In conclusion, I would like to point to the inherent danger of experimentation with new untested theories in this hour of international uncertainty and far from remote possibilities of a third world war. Even now the Korean situation, necessitating the expansion of our Armed Forces, has prompted the removal of civil-service requirements in defense agency hiring. Certainly the advisability of adopting any new methods for recruiting and examining of Government employees on the eve of impending national emergency should receive the most careful consideration of every Member of Congress.

May I again express appreciation for the time that has been allotted to the American Legion to discuss this legislation in which we are so vitally interested and urge its rejection by this committee.

Senator DwORSHAK. Then, Mr. Jacobi, you do not even propose amendments; you prefer to defeat the bill in its entirety?

Mr. JACOBI. Yes, sir. That is our position.

Senator DwORSHAK. Thank you.

Mr. JACOBI. If there are any questions concerning my opposition to it, I shall be very glad to answer them.

Senator DWORSHAK. The next witness will be Mr. Charles E. Foster, assistant director for legislation, Disabled American Veterans.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. FOSTER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Charles E. Foster, assistant legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Disabled American Veterans is appreciative of the opportunity to express our views in opposition to S. 3830.

Membership in the DAV is limited to those veterans having a service-connected wartime-incurred disability and all of our members are so-called 10-point-preference eligibles.

S. 3830, while differing in phraseology from S. 2111, by and large insofar as veterans are concerned, would accomplish the same purpose; that is, lessen job opportunities and job security for veterans in Federal employment.

It is difficult for us to comprehend why Congress should be giving consideration to a bill ostensibly designed to increase efficiency and economy in the recruitment and selection of personnel for Federal jobs when the present laws in this respect are functioning so admirably. This is particularly true with respect to the recruitment and selection of preference eligibles for Federal employment. Statistics compiled by the United States Civil Service Commission indicate that as of January 31, 1946, there were 2,411,015 persons on the Federal payroll. Of this number, 77 percent were nonveterans; 23 percent were veterans. Of the 23 percent veteran employees, 8.2 percent were 10-point veterans. Since that time the ratio between the nonveteran and veteran employee has changed considerably and as of January 1, 1950, the total number of veteran employees was 1,804,857, of which 52 percent were nonveterans. Of the 48 percent veteran employees, 15 percent were 10-point veterans.

If for no other reason, the above figures constitute sufficient grounds for the major veteran organizations to oppose any change in the existing law. This is particularly true when consideration is given to the intent of Congress in passing Public Law 359 of the Seventyeighth Congress, commonly known as the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. By enacting Public Law 359, Congress assured millions of civilians, at that time serving in the Armed Forces, that the people of this country wanted them to have top priority in securing Federal employment as a partial reward for the sacrifices they were then making. Nothing has transpired since then to alter or change this intent other than the dimming of memories with the passage of time.

The question will undoubtedly be asked, "In what respect does S. 3830, or its companion in the House, H. R. 8925, detract from or destroy job opportunities for preference eligibles in Federal employment?" I do not want to take the valuable time of this committee to analyze the bill, section by section, but would like to point out several salient points.

We feel that the Civil Service Commission renders invaluable service to veterans in Federal employment by safeguarding their rights

and privileges under the Veterans' Preference Act. We see no present need to make any changes in this respect. S. 3830 would take away from the Commission many of its present functions and substitute therefor an untried plan.

Section 7 of the bill would authorize the Commission to limit the number of persons permitted to compete for positions whenever it felt the number of applicants would be greatly in excess of requirements. We feel that such authority should not be delegated to an executive agency for fear of possible abuse. If the Commission should happen to fall under the control or influence of antiveteran officials, this authority could be used to greatly restrict the number of veterans. permitted to compete for jobs. We know from experience that there are anti-veteran-minded officials in the Federal Government.

And I think Mr. Jacobi pointed out two very good examples of that in his statement on this bill.

Section 8 of the bill would authorize the executive departments to rate competitors either numerically on a scale of 100, or by categories describing the degree of qualifications. We are opposed to any change in the present numerical rating system. We fail to understand why Congress should change the system of measuring the ability or qualifications of applicants for Federal positions. The so-called category system certainly provides no adequate yardstick by which an applicant's qualifications could be measured and it places too much discretionary power in the hands of minor Federal officials.

Section 9 of S. 3830 seeks to abolish the present rule of three in certifying eligibles for appointment by providing that an appointing officer shall be entitled to consider at least five eligibles for any known position. This change is obviously detrimental to 10-point-preference eligibles in that there are many instances where the number of such eligibles on a register would not exceed three. Again, we must reiterate that the rule of three has been working satisfactorily for a number of years, and the only reason to now change it would be in order that 10-point-preference eligibles could be passed over in many, many instances. This same section also confers the right in an appointing officer to not consider an eligible for selection if objection to him shall be made. The abuses that would arise from the enactment of this provision are manifold.

On March 2, 1950, I appeared before your committee in opposition to S. 2111, and each and every point outlined in that statement is. equally applicable to the provisions of S. 3830 and its companion, H. R. 8925.

It is incongruous that at a time when our Government is again confronted with a great national emergency which at any moment might result in a formal declaration of war, the Congress of the United States should consider legislation primarily designed to weaken the operation of the Veterans' Preference Act. "We sincerely believe that favorable consideration of this bill will be an act of disservice to the veterans of this country, at a time when the Armed Forces are seeking to recruit men for the Korean campaign. It certainly appears that we should be giving consideration to extending these benefits to those whose names are making up the daily casualty lists.

The DAV respectfully urges the members of this committee to reject S. 3830.