But I would have estimated, had you asked me, the number of temporary employees in the Washington area this summer to be not more than 1,500; but I could be wrong. It's extremely difficult to get, simply because records aren't kept in such a way, without actually making those counts; so each agency has to go through the records and make a specific count, which can be done, but I point out it is difficult. There is no place you can turn to that automatically flashes the answer, and consequently they have to make estimates. But my estimate would have been on the basis of a sampling with some of the largest agencies.

Mr. DULSKI. Did you check with the Post Office Department? Mr. STAHL. No, I didn't. I would expect their summer employment in Washington would not be particularly significant in their headquarters office. But we are only talking about departmental offices, not about the post offices as such because they are in the field, just as some other establishments in Washington are in the field. And they are not affected by apportionment even under the point that is in the law at the present time.

Mr. DULSKI. How do you treat a disabled worker? Does he have first preference? He's not included.

Mr. STAHL. That's right. You don't care where he comes from, he may be certified. Any veteran is completely exempt from the apportionment situation; and the State of his residence doesn't affect whether or not he can be certified.

The process is, if a State is over its quota, the person can't be certified if he's a nonveteran and not in one of these other excepted groups, unless you can't find anybody who is available and within reach from a State that is under its quota, in which case then you can go back and certify other people over them. That's why the States over the quota continue to be over.

Mr. DULSKI. There are people in the scientific field who look forward-when you read the magazines they look forward to this as a wonderful experience while they aren't attending school. Now you say that of the certain grade they are also excluded out of the apportionment?

Mr. STAHL. First of all, with respect to the scientific and engineering group, we have a competitive examination for student trainees which provides for a series of summer experiences preceding full-time employment.

But the Commission many years ago excluded from the apportionment provisions, not from competition now, but from the apportionment provision alone, all scientific and engineering positions primarily on the ground they were difficult enough to recruit for anyway, and it just didn't seem to pay to go through all these processes.

And as I say, they also excluded positions of GS-13 and above, although direct appointments from the outside at those levels are very small in comparison to the numbers at the lower level.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Stahl, do all or any of these jobs have to be on the register.

Mr. STAHL. No. The summer jobs I am talking about are principally not on registers.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. However, in the post offices, I believe, temporary help has to be taken from the registers.

Mr. STAHL. Certain categories of temporary help are hired from registers; I think that is right.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Well, I think carriers and clerks.

Mr. STAHL. Yes, those are the kind of jobs, but they have this temporary authority and there are substitutes. There are complicated differences.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. I know that because I am familiar with that. I have many requests.

But otherwise, your people don't have to be on the register for temporary employment?

Mr. STAHL. That's right, because by Commission actions most of these jobs we are talking about, with the exception of the student trainees in engineering and sciences, are under schedule A or under this 700-hour limitation. It's under the theory these are not permanent jobs. It's expensive to conduct an examining process, and we have tried to concentrate our examining resources where we felt they made the greatest contribution to the merit system in the Government, and that was in the permanent jobs.

Mr. ADDABBO. Do you think it might be for a better employment situation if these summer replacements were taken off the civil service list. In other words, those on the list already given the opportunity to these vacancies, and after they get the 3 months' experience and go back to their respective States and do eventually go on the permanent list, that they have already had experience and then get a fair apportionment throughout the country. It would be easy to circulate each agency in the States, to send out a general announcement. Even those on the list could apply.

Mr. STAHL. May I, in response to that, point this out. Even in a number of these stenographic and typing jobs, for example, which are under 700 hours for the duration of the summer, the agencies may actually turn to the competitive registers for permanent appointment to get candidates. They don't ignore those; they may use those as a source of candidates. The only thing is they don't have to appoint in a certain order. They don't have to consider competition. But they do use that as a source in many cases, perhaps even in most

cases.

At the same time, though, they are also free to appoint anybody who meets the minimum standards in all of these jobs. They have to meet the minimum standards. It's simply a case of not making distinctions among the people who do meet the minimum standards.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is exactly what the postal field service does under regulations of the Postmaster General. Preferential temporary employment is granted to persons who have not yet been reached on a register, and postmasters don't employ other temporary help if there is someone on a register who can be reached.

Mr. ADDABRO. I know that is so in the post office. Why not in the other agencies, the same way?

Mr. JOHNSON. The postal service has a general regulation also which limits to 30 days a temporary appointment. Such temporary employment can be extended beyond 30 days only in the case of necessity where they can't get anyone else.

Mr. STAHL. May I also, in further elaboration, point out when any individual makes application for an examination he indicates whether

he is interested only in permanent employment or whether he would be willing to accept temporary employment.

It's always possible people can change their minds, of course, when an opportunity comes up, but very few people applying for regular jobs, permanent jobs, indicate that they are interested in temporary jobs. Consequently, the numbers who are on the list, who could be considered for the temporary jobs, is usually relatively small, percentagewise.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. I would like to commend Mr. Stahl on his very fine and clear statement.

Mr. STAHL. Thank you very much.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. I think we are very much better informed-at least I am, than I was previously.

Thank you very much.

Mr. STAHL. Thank you. You are very kind.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Broyhill was unable to be here today so we will include his statement in the record at an appropriate point. Mr. DULSKI. He is opposed to it, I presume.

(Mr. Broyhill's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

Madam Chairman, I wish to thank you and the members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to tell you why I feel it would be unwise as well as unnecessary to apply to temporary summer jobs the State-proportion ratio rule which now applies to permanent Federal jobs in the Washington area.

In the first place, it would be unwise because it would interfere seriously with the effort of the Civil Service Commission to recruit promising students to permanent Government employment as a career.

Temporary summer employment in the seat of Government serves a two-fold purpose in this recruitment program. First, it helps the Commission to convince likely students of the many benefits and advantages of making a carreer of Government service. Second, it constitutes an invaluable training ground; if the Commission does persuade the student on graduation to enter career Government service, he already has been indoctrinated in some of the ways of Government and does not have to begin his permanent Government service with absolutely no civil service background.

Thus, application of the apportionment principle to temporary summer_jobs in Washington would unduly hamper the Civil Service Commission in its efforts to recruit and prepare capable young men and women for Federal service.

It also would disrupt the programs now in effect in many Washington area schools whereby students may go to school part time and receive scholastic credit for certain types of part-time Government work. Such a program is an integral part of the educational system in many localities.

Even apart from this affirmative point, no need whatsoever can be demonstrated for extension of the ratio rule to summer jobs. The fact is that a vast. majority of students seeking summer Government employment, prefer to work in their home areas. But students in other parts of the country who express an interest in Washington jobs, are given full consideration by the Civil Service Commission and many of them actually do come here for summer work under present regulations.

Furthermore, application of the ratio rule to summer jobs would be most unfair to youngsters living in the District or in nearby Maryland or Virginia. Less than 10 percent of all Government jobs are in the Washington area today; there are more Federal jobs in California, for example, than there are in this area. But the State-proportion ratio does not apply to Federal jobs in California, only to those in the District of Columbia area. To apply the rule to summer jobs would mean that California youths would have a preference in a substantial proportion of the available openings here; but Maryland, Virginia, or District of Columbia youths would have no such preference for any summer openings in California.

The present rule whereby summer jobs are filled primarily on the basis of each applicant's merits, is far more fair to all concerned than would be any application of the State-ratio rule.

This rule originally was adopted in the civil service law of 1883. Almost all Federal jobs were then located in the Washington area, and the rule was intended to assure that the jobs would be spread among residents of all parts of the country. The situation today is far different and actually no valid reason exists for the rule now.

Rather than extending the apportionment principle to the summer jobs, I think we should be working to abolish it altogether.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. The subcommittee will now adjourn, subject to call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)