Mr. JOHNSON. May I say, sir, I have addressed myself chiefly to the problems of the three principal agencies. I recognize and the Herter Committee did have something to say about the problems of the other agencies-they are difficult ones.

Mr. HAYS. I really do not think that it would cripple the legislation if we were forced to delete the paragraph about the other agencies. I do not think it contributes much. On the other hand, I doubt if they do too much for us.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. I have no questions.

Mr. HAYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Hays.

Mr. HAYS. I am sure your comments will be valuable to the committee in the consideration of the markup of this bill.

Next we will hear from Mr. Robert Smith, legislative assistant, National Federation of Federal Employees.

He has asked that he be passed over. He had to go out.

So we will call on Mr. Francis W. Stover, director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS W. STOVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. STOVER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear here today in behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

My name is Francis W. Stover and I am the national legislative director. The membership of the Veterans of Foreign Wars is presently 1,300,000 which consists of veterans with overseas wartime and campaign service.

One of the cornerstones of veterans' rights is the preference granted to those war veterans who choose to enter the Federal civil service. For many years the number so employed has been approximately 50 percent or half the Federal male work force. On a general basis, therefore, in the average Government agency about half the male employees are war veterans who are entitled to veterans' preference as defined under the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944.

The purpose of my presence here this date is concerned only with two sections of the bill, H.R. 6277, under consideration by this committee, which sections taken together would be a giant step down the road to eliminate veterans' preference for employees of the Federal civil service.

The positions of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States are determined by the delegates to our annual national conventions who adopt resolutions concerning veterans' programs. For many years the delegates to our conventions have reaffirmed our complete opposition to any efforts to weaken the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, as amended.

Our most recent annual national convention was held last August in Cleveland, Ohio, and among the resolutions approved was one

identified as No. 11, which reads as follows, and is the latest expression of policy on this subject by our organization:

OPPOSING ALL EFFORTS TO WEAKEN THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT

Whereas the Veterans' Preference Act in Federal civil service has been most beneficial to veterans; and

Whereas the Veterans' Preference Act is one of the few available benefits to our veterans who served honorably during periods of war; and

Whereas the Veterans' Preference Act has been a deterrent to unjust agency action; and

Whereas the Veterans' Preference Act has furnished war veterans with justifiable protection in Federal civil service jobs; and

Whereas the basic rights under the Veterans' Preference Act have been proven to be so fair and just that many of the provisions of the Veterans' Preference Act have been given, by Executive order, to nonveterans; and

Whereas there is a continuing attack on the Veterans' Preference Act; and Whereas the attack against the Veterans' Preference Act has not been brought out into the open; and

Whereas there is an effort to undermine the Veterans' Preference Act by inserting a weakening effect to Veterans' Preference Act in legislation by different agencies; and

Whereas legislation to encourage collective bargaining between the unions and management on the Alaskan Railroad contains a section which would revoke and weaken the Veterans' Preference Act; and

Whereas legislation introduced in the 88th Congress to amend the Foreign Assistance Act contains a section which would allow the agency to dismiss employees without regard to any other law; and

Whereas the sections of these two bills are aimed directly at weakening and revoking the Veterans' Preference Act; and

Whereas the Veterans of Foreign Wars have strongly supported and championed the retention of the Veterans' Preference Act in all agencies; and

Whereas any disregard or revocation of the Veterans' Preference Act by any one agency will not only weaken the Veterans' Preference Act but will start a precedent where other agencies will seek further legislation to operate and act without regard to the Veterans' Preference Act: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the 65th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That we strongly support the continuation of the Veterans' Preference Act in all Federal agencies and strongly oppose any and all efforts of Federal agencies through legislative or administrative action which will in any way weaken the Veterans' Preference Act.

The purpose of my presence here this date is to discuss these sections of H.R. 6277, which are in direct conflict with our efforts to preserve and strengthen the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 and of the resolution I just read.

I refer to section 25 of H.R. 6277--subcommittee print-as it appears on page 11 and reads as follows:

Section 25(a). The provisions of the Civil Service Act of January 16, 1883, as amended, section 6 of the Act of August 24, 1912, as amended (5 U.S.C. 652), the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944, as amended, and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, shall not apply to officers and employees of the Foreign Service of the United States.

Here in section 25 (a) is an express repeal of the Veterans' Preference Act as it applies to veterans' preference employees who may come within the purview of H.R. 6277. Section 25 standing alone is a redeclaration of existing law as it applies to those in the Foreign Service of the United States.

What makes section 25 objectionable is that when coupled with section 22 of H.R. 6277-subcommittee print-it will apply to any civil service employees who presently are enjoying veterans' preference rights.

Under section 22 the President will be authorized without regard to the Veterans' Preference Act or any other law to provide for the transfer of all personnel not only of the three specified agencies, namely, the Department of State, Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency, but also to such personnel as he may designate of other Government agencies who are engaged in foreign affairs functions of the Foreign Service of the United States. This is an open end invitation to bring within the scope of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 a large number of employees who will, after such transfer is effected, lose their veterans' preference status as classified civil service employees.

It has been stated by some that the principal objection to the Veterans' Preference Act is its requirement, in accordance with due process of law, that a hearing must be held in certain adverse actions, including arbitrary dismissals if and when the veterans' preference employee so requests. The heart of the veterans' preference right is the privilege granted to veterans in the event of a reduction in force or layoff. Veterans are placed in a higher category for retention purposes under section 12 of the Veterans' Preference Act if and when a reduction in force of competing employees is necessary.

During the 88th Congress the Agency for International Development requested authority to select out employees of that Agency without regard to the Veterans' Preference Act. It now appears that this request has been renewed at least in part-through sections 22 and 25 as contained in this bill.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly opposed this provision in the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act of 1964 and we were extremely pleased when the Congress refused to go along with that particular provision in that bill. It is strongly recommended that section 25 of this bill be deleted or struck.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars is intensely concerned with the efficient administration of our foreign affairs programs. It has never been successfully demonstrated that the Veterans' Preference Act impairs the efficiency of our governmental programs whether they are carrying out foreign programs or domestic programs.

The abrogation or repeal of a right is a drastic action and before taking this step the Veterans of Foreign Wars requests that this subcommittee, the full committee, and the Congress take a long deep look at this proposal, which is buried in the middle of this important bill. It is our respected conclusion that you will agree with the Veterans of Foreign Wars that section 25 is unnecessary and that the operation of the Veterans' Preference Act for employees affected by this bill will in no way interfere or impair the efficiency of our most important foreign programs.

In closing, I would like to refresh the memory of this subcommittee of the purpose and intent of the Veterans' Preference Act by reading the remarks of Congressman Starnes when he was discussing the bill on the floor of the House which eventually became the Veterans' Preference Act, when he stated as follows:

What it does

And he was talking about the Veterans' Preference Act—

What it does is to give legislative sanction to existing veterans' preference, to the rules and regulations in the executive branch of the Government and to

broaden and strengthen those preferences, with the idea that when a man is selected by the country to serve in battle and give his life, if need be, for the preservation of this country and its institutions, that same man is certainly entitled to some degree of preference for positions in Government departments and agencies in serving his country in peacetime. It is a reward to a man for patriotic duties well performed; it encourages our young men and women to serve their country in an hour of need; and it makes them feel when they have given their all or offered to give their all in defense of this country and its institutions, that a grateful country will recognize their sacrifice and service when peace comes by giving them preference for service in various capacities with their Government.

These same reasons, Mr. Chairman, are just as valid today as when they were so eloquently stated by Congressman Starnes back in 1944. The VFW urges this subcommittee to delete section 25 (a) and preserve the Veterans' Preference Act for Federal civil service employees who would be affected by the reorganization contemplated by H.R.

6277.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Stover, in your prepared statement you apparently have no objection to section 25 which is in the law now which makes Foreign Service officers subject to selection-out. What I understand you are objecting to is extending this to even one more person; is that right?

Mr. STOVER. That is correct.

Mr. HAYS. Well, how would you feel if they then wrote the law saying that from now on all vacancies in the State Department should be filled by the Foreign Service Reserve or Foreign Service officers and that no vacancies in civil service be filled? This would take a long time to get all these people into the category of foreign affairs officers, but

Mr. MORSE. Would you repeat that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HAYS. I was just throwing this up.

Mr. MORSE. I missed part of it.

Mr. HAYS. If we passed a law or even issued a recommendation that no vacancies occurring under civil service be filled any more by civil service but that they be filled by Foreign Service officers or Foreign Service Reserve categories.

Mr. STOVER. I don't know. I cannot predict just what our organization delegates to our convention would do. I would predict they would strongly oppose converting the present classified civil service employees of the State Department to Foreign Service.

Mr. HAYS. Do you recognize any difficulty in trying to run an organization that has three or four personnel systems?

Mr. STOVER. I am not an expert on personnel systems, Mr. Chairman, but I do know about the Veterans' Administration, a little bit about the operation of that organization. It does have 170,000 employees. It is the largest independent agency. Insofar as I know, the Veterans' Preference Act has never in any way impaired the efficiency of the administration of the Veterans' Administration. We cannot understand why this is such a drag on the operation of other departments and why they would have to have a different system than is applied to other agencies.

Mr. HAYS. I do not think it is comparable, because my question did not apply to the Veterans' Administration, which presumably operates only one personnel system.

The State Department has at least three at the moment. They have some employees who are Foreign Service officers, some who are Foreign Service Reserve, and some who are civil service. And I do not think anybody, certainly I did not have any intention of trying to hurt the Veterans' Preference Act.

I am just trying to carry out the recommendation of practically every committee that studied this problem, and put these people somehow, sometime under one personnel system.

Mr. STOVER. Well, I am not acquainted with all the details of the Foreign Service Act, Mr. Chairman. I do not know much about it, to be honest with you, but nevertheless, we are opposed to converting civil service positions to the Foreign Service.

Mr. HAYS. There is one thing in your statement I want to call your attention to. You say on page 4, second paragraph:

During the 88th Congress the Agency for International Development requested authority to select out employees of that Agency without regard to the Veterans' Preference Act.

Now that is not exactly a correct statement. I am not saying that you deliberately made it incorrect, but there is a little technical language here. What they really asked for was the authority to fire 200 people, that was the beginning, and then they scaled it down and down, without regard to anything. They were not going to go through any selection-out process.

For the benefit of those of you who were not here yesterday, selectionout is not arbitrarily firing a fellow. He has to be in the lower 10 percent of his group for 2 succeeding years. In other words, he is not keeping up with his class, and his case goes before a selection-out board, and there are appeals processes and so on. So you do not just pick a fellow and say "You're out." But what the AID Agency wanted was to let the Director pick a number of people and send them a pink slip, saying this is the only way they can get rid of dead wood.

This would probably have passed. All of the veterans organizations and Government employees organizations notwithstanding, except that someone on the committee-and I believe it was Mr. Gross, and I want to give credit where credit is due-had come up with the information that the AID Agency had promoted everybody in the Agency in grade and given them all a pay raise and we just felt, well, if they thought they were all that good a few weeks before, then there must not be anybody in there that needed to be fired, and so we said, "Nothing doing."

Mr. STOVER. Well, the mystery to the Veterans of Foreign Wars is why the AID cannot fire these same people under the auspices and provisions of the Veterans' Preference Act. The inference that I get from these agencies is that somehow or other you cannot fire people under the Veterans' Preference Act. This is not true at all.

Mr. HAYS. If you are looking for a job I think I can arrange for you to get one, and if you can fire some of them I will try to get you a Congressional Medal of Honor, because it is next to impossible, let me tell you that, under civil service regulations.

Mr. STOVER. I can demonstrate to you that civil service people are being fired all the time and appeals are affirmed in cases where veterans have appealed, where they have had a hearing before the civil service regional office, it has been appealed to the Board of Appeals and Re