STATEMENT OF HON. LINDLEY BECKWORTH, MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM DISTRICT 3, STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am happy to have this opportunity to appear in behalf of H.R. 10, which the chairman of the subcommittee has accurately traced the history of, except under another number, and that number was H.R. 5698. The chairman did omit one or two or maybe three pertinent details about the passage of H.R. 5698, in that he failed to state that it passed this committee 15 to 1 and also failed to state that on a record vote, it passed the House of Representatives 309 to 19.

Mr. BROYHILL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I don't yield at this time. He also failed to state that it passed the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee and insofar as I have been able to find, there was no vote against it in that committee. It would be interesting to find out how it was stopped over in the Senate.

I do hope that one day some way we can get votes on it in both bodies and on the record.

In connection with the report given by the Civil Service Commission, which mentions that in the opinion of those of the Commission that the apportionment system for nonsummer jobs is probably out of date, I wish to emphasize that this committee, of which I am a member, considered in the form of an amendment, offered by Mr. Broyhill, whether or not the present apportionment system for nonsummer civil service jobs is out of date and the vote in the committee was 15 to 1, as each of you who happened to be present, recalls. So we do have an up-to-date opinion, Mr. Chairman, of this committee on the Civil Service Apportionment Act, which has been law since 1883; the vote of this committee was taken at the time this bill was voted on-H.R. 5698.

I feel my observation is pertinent in view of the report that we have recently been sent by the Civil Service Commission. It is not my purpose to take a lot of time on this bill because it has been considered by the subcommittee, not the same subcommittee, but the chairman was on it and Mr. Broyhill was on it. The committee considered it, the House considered it and it is very clear. It is a very brief bill. There are facts and figures that are indicative of why the bill was introduced by several of us and I might add, there is a companion bill in the Senate, introduced by Senator Randolph of West Virginia, who is a member of the Senate Civil Service and Post Office Committee.

I simply ask that the subcommittee reevaluate the legislation and then do what the subcommittee wishes to do. On March 20, 1963, I received a letter signed by Everett M. Kirkpatrick, who is the executive director of the American Political Science Association with offices at 1728 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. I have read in the paper that this organization has been interesting itself in the question of summer employment. The organization does not endorse my bill, though the organization has seen the Congressional Record of October 1, where the bill and others are discussed, not only by me,

but by several Members of Congress. Mr. Kirkpatrick writes this and I do want to quote one sentence of his letter to me:

The objective of such legislation seems to me to be worthwhile and I certainly share your feeling that these positions should be filled on a competitive basis and the young people throughout the Nation should have an opportunity to get firsthand experience in the work of the Government.

This is the main objective of this legislation, to give young people from all over this country some opportunity at least to refuse the privilege or the offer to work for the Government in the summer and may I emphasize this to the subcommittee. So far as trying to work up a system where patronage would be the controlling factor, that is the furthest from what is in my mind. I would be delighted to see all the patronage factors eliminated totally so far as these jobs are concerned. I am a strong believer in civil service. I have great faith in civil service.

As far as these summer jobs are concerned, I would like to see a written competitive examination given to just as many students as possible and if all of them can qualify from two or three States by that method, it would be all right with me. It is possible that some of the jobs may not be the type that one could give written examinations for, but in most instances it is my opinion thorough written exams could be given. I have often said the ability to get good people for the Government service generally is no better than the thoroughness of the examinations given, because examinations mean that, generally speaking, stronger people will qualify.

I would like to see the Civil Service Commission use in as many instances as possible, Mr. Macy, the kind of examinations you give for the Academies. These examinations test rather well, as I view it. very well indeed. You know, I have used that system over a period of some 20-odd years, and I'm glad to say, that most of the boys I have been able to find and judge through that system have been good students and have done well in the Academies. But these are real examinations. If one gives that examination to about 70 boys, ordinarily, he will find only about 15 doing good on the examination. This has been my experience.

I might say this thought only comes to my mind now-that this kind of an examination could be given this year and you would have an eligible list that could last 2 or 3 years. Then if you had a lot of summer jobs to fill, you could look to that list, as you do to other lists of 2 or 3 years, to get employees and if you found that the examinations were too costly, you could only give one every 2 years or every 3 years.

I believe this is about all the statement I have to make at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULSKI. I have a few questions to ask of you.

Mr. BECKWORTH. All right, sir.

Mr. DULSKI. You mentioned in your testimony that you believe in a strong civil service. On February 20, 1963, an article appeared in the Evening Star, "White House To Control Student Job Patronage." Are you familiar with the statement that was in the paper?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I read something about that. I read nearly all of the fine columns of our writers like Mr. Young, Mr. Kluttz, and Mr. Cramer, but I made my statement clear on patronage just then. I stand by that statement. I am a Democrat and I would say what I said whether a Democrat is in the White House or a Republican is in the White House, I believe we ought to fill, not only the summer jobs, but all these jobs on real merit. This can best be done by thorough testing.

I have said this and I say it here before the chairman of the Civil Service Commission. I think we have entirely too many unassembled examinations instead of assembled examinations and that conclusion I have come to after observations of long duration. A real strong test, in my judgment, will assure stronger people for this Government. We have lots of wonderful people in the Government, but our Government needs the best people we can get. This is cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run. With costs of Government so high, the inefficient, unprepared hanger-on type must never be hired and if hired, weeded out.

Mr. DULSKI. Did you read the report of March 20 on this bill by Mr. Macy, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. BECKWORTH. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. DULSKI. Do you agree with the statement that says:

There appears to be far less interest on the part of citizens in participating in affairs at the seat of Government.

Do you think there is less interest now?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I think there is considerable interest on the part of people throughout this country in learning about their Government, yes, on the part of young people, and older people, too. Not only is that true, but people all over this country are paying more attention to the Government, and I'm proud to say that is the case. One reason for this, in my judgment, is because of the very high cost of Government. We now have almost a $100 billion budget. This I regret very much. I want to see economy in Government.

On the other hand, assume the statement you quote is true, then this bill would have little effect. There would be nothing to worry about.

Mr. DULSKI. Do you agree with the statement, Mr. Beckworth? You stated before you have many inquiries. I have many inquiries as far as jobs are concerned. Now the statement was made that there is very little interest at the seat of Government. Don't you think that students all over the country are interested?

Mr. BECKWORTH. That has been my conception, very definitely. Then, too, part of that statement sent here by the Commission, as I recall, indicates this is true in connection with the lower paid year round jobs. There is less and less interest in overall employment for the Government in lower paid jobs; year around jobs perhaps. I am talking about the report. It is true that in connection with the jobs that pay the lowest in our Government, people can't come from California to take them. But, back to the statement in the political science letter, the thing that I am mostly interested in, and I say this as a former teacher, is to give these boys and girls who want to learn something about this Government, based on merit, an opportunity at least to have their applications considered.

Mr. DULSKI. You have made another statement that the positions are to be taken from the list; is that correct?

Mr. BECKWORTH. What is that?

Mr. DULSKI. There will be an examination and after the people qualify, they are placed on a list. Now would this individual-let's say he is a sophomore in school and he is on this list and he is up here to work for the Government for, let's say, 3 months. He goes back to school in September. Would he be in the same position to qualify for the job the following year because he is a junior?

Mr. BECKWORTH. That, of course, would be a detail that would have to be worked out. If he did a good job of work and the officials of the Government felt like he is the one that is needed for the place, I would have no objection. The idea in this Government is to have the man that can deliver the goods working. But the idea, too, is to give students from all 50 States a fair shake. Two or three States getting three-fourths of the summer jobs is a one-sided situation, in my opinion. The summer job program could and should be better balanced as between States.

I had a letter this morning-I do not make this as a statement-but this is the kind of thing that we want to avoid. I am not going to mention the name. The letter was sent to me this morning. This is from a boy that has worked for the Government in the summer. It is dated March 25. I want to read this paragraph.

I would ask that the program itself be given careful scrutiny. While the idea of making Government service accessible to college students is a sound one, at times it amounts to a needless waste. While many students do make worthwhile contributions to their agencies, others spend most of the sunimer reading books and hustling coffee.

Now I didn't make that statement but if it is true, it ought to be stopped.

Mr. DULSKI. That is part of the administration of this program, but I am just referring to the bill.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Your specific question?

Mr. DULSKI. The specific question is this: According to the civil service law, you are on probation for a certain length of time. Now these boys and girls who are coming into the Government that are serving in these positions from all over the country, would you retain them on the list or would they be automatically out and would there be an opportunity for the others on the lower scale?

Mr. BECKWORTH. My bill doesn't go into that question. My bill is a very simple bill on the question of temporary employment apportionment. Actually this bill doesn't touch that. It is an apportionment bill. I think there again high merit should be the determining thing, high merit worked out by the Civil Service Commission and the agency involved.

Mr. DULSKI. You worked very hard to procure the information you submitted to us in the last Congress and also this year. Did you have access or did you have the cooperation of all of the agencies to procure information or were there some who refused?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I finally got some of it, but it was a real difficult job to get. And I didn't get all of it because actually, the information that I have presented in tables, I obtained agency by agency

and the sum total for each year was in connection with some 2,000 or 3,000 jobs. The columnists say that there are some 10,000 jobs. When I was before the subcommittee before, I mentioned this in my testimony. I said that I would be glad for the Civil Service Commission to bring up to date the total distribution with reference to the 10,000 jobs, if there are that many jobs. Possibly if that could be done, it might show a picture not nearly so one-sided as the one shown in the tables that I obtained or conceivably it could show them more one-sided. But I believe the Congress ought to have that information. I call on the Civil Service Commission now to show the geographical distribution, State by State, of all summer jobs in the Washington

area.

Mr. DULSKI. That is the reason I asked the question. The Commission shares the sentiments and I'm quoting right from their report:

The Commission shares the sentiment for providing an opportunity for as many of our youth as possible to work for the Federal Government in the Washington, D.C., area. We have constantly encouraged agencies to develop worthwhile and substantial summer employment programs which will provide students with valuable insights into the workings and problems of Government. Now, if the agencies and the Civil Service Commission are so in favor, why were the agencies so reluctant to give you information? Mr. BECKWORTH. I do not want to indicate that I was totally refused, but one agency, for example, told me I had no business with that information and I don't know why.

Mr. DULSKI. You didn't accept their reason, of course?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I did not accept it. And incidentally, another Member of Congress, who hasn't introduced a bill, helped me to get some information. It shouldn't be difficult to obtain, as the Congress has a right to these details, in my opinion.

I mentioned 10,000 summer jobs, but I don't know how many there are. Here is a column dated February 22, 1963, by Mr. Cramer, and I want to read this. I don't make this as a charge. You will recall I have made no incriminating charges about our agencies at any time. I do have these tables and they speak for themselves. Here is what Mr. Cramer said:

The truth about students' summer jobs in the Washington area-about 11,000 last year.

And he says

The truth isn't pleasant. The truth is about 5,000 jobs may be justified. The rest are padded and made jobs.

Now that is not my statement. It goes on to say:

For years Federal agencies have made it a practice to save up routine tasks and unencumbered funds so as to be able to provide summer employment to the sons and daughters of agency bigshots and others favored. There is excuse for hiring summer replacements for these employees, who are on vacation. There is no excuse for the summer job racket which has grown up or the illadvised White House attempt to take advantage of it.

Now I don't allege that these jobs are made jobs. I say if they are, in view of the great cost of Government, that practice ought to be cut out. I might say this, that in the same article, there is no indication of friendship toward my bill. In fact, the article says my bill is the worst possible approach to a solution.