examination, which I would not favor, or grant noncompetitive examinations for the incumbents.

In New York and other States we do not have the system of permitting people to remain in the service after they fail to receive a qualifying rating. They go out. Only those who pass are retained in the service.

Mr. KUNKEL. When I referred to two alternatives I meant noncompetitive and competitive examinations.

Mr. KAPLAN. I understood.

If the Congress is willing to appropriate about $5,000,000 for the Civil Service Commission, as a minimum, and it is believed that a bill providing for open, competitive examinations will go through, we would not have any objection to it.

Mr. KUNKEL. Do you think it is practicable to work out an intermediate solution between the competitive and the noncompetitive examination?

Mr. KAPLAN. There is one possibility, and that would be to hold open, competitive examinations, and let those who are incumbents and who pass the examinations be preferred for appointment, provided they come within a certain rating in the examination. That examination rating could be, say, 80 percent.

Mr. KUNKEL. As I understand, you would not distinguish between those who have taken civil-service examinations and acquired eligibility and those who have neglected to acquire that status.

Mr. KAPLAN. I do not believe I would. I would let all compete in these examinations and then give preference to those now in the service who passed above a certain rating.

Mr. KUNKEL. Do you think that would be preferable?

Mr. KAPLAN. It might be preferable from the viewpoint of retaining the best workers in the service. I should add that I do not think you could get such a bill through Congress. After all, as we view this whole problem, we believe that the matter of extending the competitive service for the future is more important than whether these persons come in this or that way. Having had considerable experience all over the country in connection with these personnel problems of the emergency agencies, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such animal as "temporary agencies.

Mr. FRIES. Which is the more effective method of obtaining qualified applicants for civil-service positions, competitive examinations or service rendered by the applicants?

Mr. KAPLAN. My answer is by the method of competitive examinations, based on records of performance also. Much depends upon what you mean by "civil-service examinations." I do not hold a brief for some civil-service examinations where they test academically too much. My idea is an appraisal or evaluation of one's experience, training, and ability to work as reflected in an examination. For instance, a private corporation may select a man on account of performance. That is what the civil-service commissions are trying to do. They are trying to emulate private industry in that respect. On the whole, though, I believe the public service is doing a better job in selecting personnel than is private industry.

The CHAIRMAN. I think what Mr. Fries has in mind is experience applicants may have had in the service.

Mr. FRIES. That experience against somebody just from college.

Mr. KAPLAN. Experience should be given credit.

Mr. FRIES. It may be valuable on account of it being practical experience.

This

Mr. KAPLAN. We had a situation where a commission had been appointed to make a study of the parole system in New York City. That commission was made up of the most prominent, civic-minded and technically equipped personnel in criminology that one could find to make a study of the parole system in New York. We revised that system and set up a new one, and pending the holding of competitive examinations there were 71 parole officers appointed. They were recommended by the high-minded, civic-minded people. system was to be nonpolitical in character; and they held examinations, but the 71 were appointed without requirements as to civil service pending the holding of the regular examination. The Department had determined the scope of the examination. The experts had set the preliminary requirements in regard to experience, qualifications, and so forth, necessary to take the examination. They selected expert examiners to conduct the tests; and they also had picked most of the 71 temporary employees; yet not a single one of those 71 temporary employees or provisional appointees passed the examination. Half of them failed to meet the preliminary requirements as to education and experience that the department itself had set up for its own employees.

We found that the 71 persons appointed temporarily were politically appointed and apportioned two for each assembly district throughout the State. That proved that the civil-service system with all its shortcomings, which we recognize, is far better than the political system of selection, no matter how well conceived.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Kaplan, this bill undertakes to make its terms applicable to all employees outside the civil service, as I understand. Mr. KAPLAN. That is right.

Mr. HALLECK. Do you not think it would be better to state those agencies to be covered by it so we may cover only those agencies that we recognize as permanent in character?

Mr. KAPLAN. My suggestion is that you not attempt that. When you attempt to do that, the tendency will be to put in this one and that one and except this one and that one. If there is one thing that is demoralizing to the Federal service, it is having one-half of the service on a civil-service basis and the other half on a patronage basis.

Mr. HALLECK. Do you think that tomorrow we should set up a new bureau and provide for the employment of persons therein outside of the classified civil service and the next day enact this pending bill and bring employees into the classified service without competitive examination?

Mr. KAPLAN. No. When the Congress establishes its principle in the Ramspeck bill, there will be little pretext for the Congress to make wholesale exceptions. In New York, Ohio, and California that is possible under the constitutional provisions. You will not permanently correct the situation that exists today unless you amend the Federal Constitution making it impossible to make wholesale exemption from the competitive system.

I would predict that within 10 years after you adopt this bill you will have half the agencies now covered

Mrs. ROGERS. Did I understand you to say that you feel something should be allowed for experience in connection with civil-service examinations?

Mr. KAPLAN. Incumbents should be given credit for experience just like credit is given to outsiders for experience. I would not discriminate against these particular persons.

Mrs. ROGERS. As I understand, you feel that the noncompetitive examination would not be an examination at all?

Mr. KAPLAN. I do not agree. That all depends on how generous the Congress may be with the Civil Service Commission in providing funds for holding examinations. You cannot expect the Civil Service Commission to give proper examinations without adequate funds. Mrs. ROGERS. I do not see how the Commission does so well as it does with the limited facilities afforded it.

Mr. KAPLAN. That is true.

May I say before closing that the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce, which is unofficially associated with the National Civil Service Reform League and works in close cooperation with its program, in extension of the merit system, is thoroughly in sympathy with the Rampspeck bill, as is the National Civil Service Reform League. I believe I am safe in predicting that the next convention of the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce will adopt a resolution approving the Ramspeck bill.

Mrs. ROGERS. Of course, as you know, the Ramspeck bill would take in these temporary employees without competitive examination. Mr. KAPLAN. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. You think it would be better to have them covered into the service by competitive examination, do you not?

Mr. KAPLAN. Idealistically, yes; realistically, no. I should like to see both political organizations get together and call a halt on the patronage game. Congress itself has to take the initiative in this matter.

Mr. HARTER. I believe we have about 840,000 Government employees, and this bill proposes to place 250,000 or 300,000 in the classified service by noncompetitive examination.

Mr. KAPLAN. There are about 250,000 that would be covered, as I understand.

Mr. HARTER. We have figures showing more than 300,000.

Mr. KAPLAN. I am excluding that number covered by the Executive order of June 24, 1938. There remain 250,000 or 260,000, I believe.

Mrs. ROGERS. Does it not seem unfair to take people into the service by noncompetitive examination when there are others on the eligible register anxious for employment?

Mr. KAPLAN. I appreciate that.

Mrs. ROGERS. I think that is manifestly unfair to those already on the civil-service registers. Many of them entered the civil service by competitive examination, and then were dismissed, and they would like to get back into the service.

Mr. KAPLAN. That is the way it has been done since 1883. Actually, the Republican organization, when it had control of Congress, had the same opportunity to do this but failed to do it.

Mrs. ROGERS. I know that; but I opposed that failure.

Mr. KAPLAN. I do not believe that any party in power, whether it Democratic or Republican, will adopt a law requiring open, competitive examinations for incumbents.

Mr. REES. You do not mean to say that the party in power will oppose open, competitive examinations.

Mr. KAPLAN. Yes; it will. That is uniform history.

The CHAIRMAN. From your experience, Mr. Kaplan, to put a hypothetical situation, suppose we did not put these jobs under the merit system and in 1941 the Republicans came in. Do you not believe they would change the jobs before they would put them under civil service?

Mr. KAPLAN. That is always what has been done.

STATEMENT OF MRS. LOUISA G. BALDWIN

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mrs. Louisa G. Baldwin, National League of Women Voters, Washington, D. C.

Mrs. BALDWIN. I am first vice president of the National League of Women Voters.

Two years ago I appeared before your committee in support of H. R. 2700, which was a bill similar to H. R. 960, now before members of the committee. I spoke at that time at some length, and so today, because I know time is very short, I should like to have permission to file a brief statement and to say to members of the committee that the National League of Women Voters reaffirms its support of this bill.

We regret very much that Congress, when it was creating these new agencies, did not see fit to put the employees of the agencies under civil service, and the league very much hopes that Congress will lose very little time now in enacting the pending bill.

The National League of Women Voters supports H. R. 960 providing for extension of the merit system in the civil service to the positions at present exempt by congressional act. The league has been working for many years for the extension of the civil-service system to all positions in the public service except those that are policy-determining in character. Two years ago we appeared before this committee in support of H. R. 2700, similar to this bill in its provisions. We reaffirm at this time our support of legislation of this type and urge that H. R. 960 be reported favorably to the House for action. There is no provision in this bill that would insure action within any stated period of time. In our opinion the bill would be strengthened, if a clause were added authorizing the President to act within a given period and providing that at the expiration of such time all remaining exempt positions would automatically come into the classified civil service.

The extension of the Classification Act provided for in the bill is a step that has long been needed in the Federal civil service and one which we heartily support.

We should like to comment on the method proposed for giving civil-service status to incumbents of positions brought into the classified service for the first time. In our opinion the giving of civilservice status after the passing of a noncompetitive examination given by the Civil Service Commission and on the recommendation

of the head of the agency in which the individual is employed is the best method of meeting this problem.

Noncompetitive examinations conducted by the Civil Service Commission are adequate to determine whether incumbents of such positions have the necessary qualifications to keep the positions they hold. Furthermore, the giving of noncompetitive examinations is a less cumbersome and less expensive process than the giving of open competitive examinations. When new agencies are established and new positions created, we believe that such positions should be filled through open competitive examinations. When agencies are already operating, however, the giving of noncompetitive examinations to incumbents of positions brought within the classified service seems the most satisfactory method of transferring personnel to the classified civil service.

Since we testified at length 2 years ago on the need for extension of the classified civil service, we wish only to reaffirm our position at this time. The need for extending the merit system in the civil service grows steadily more acute. We regret that the Congress exempted these positions from the civil-service system at the time they were created. We urge that this committee report without delay this measure which makes possible the extension of the merit system to the entire Federal service.

Mrs. ROGERS. You think it would be better to have open competitive examinations and allow for experience?

Mrs. BALDWIN. The league believes that open competitive examinations are the best way of getting properly qualified personnel for the Government service.

In the case of agencies that have been established, when Congress had an opportunity to put the employees of those agencies under the civil service, it did not do it. We think that qualifying examinations are the most practical way of extending the classified service. It is a practical and realistic way.

Many of the incumbents of the present agencies under consideration are those who have qualified during many years' service for their jobs; and we think they should have an opportunity because of the experience they have had in these agencies to qualify for their present jobs. If we had our way and plenty of money, we might favor open, competitive examinations for the incumbents. We know it is a slow process to fill large numbers of positions by competitive examinations, and in this case the service might suffer in the meantime. We are for as efficient a Government service as we can possibly effect. Mrs. ROGERS. Last year you supported open, competitive examinations, did you not?

Mrs. BALDWIN. We have always favored open, competitive examinations for new agencies; but we supported Mr. Ramspeck's bill 2 years ago, which had the same provision for incumbents as the bill before you.

Mrs. ROGERS. I believe you have been trying to get those who have lost their positions back into the service.

Mrs. BALDWIN. We have been trying to improve and extend the civil service.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your statement and are delighted to have you with us.