President could make certain exemptions, either as to classifications or positions, or as to the full application of the rules of the Civil Service Commission. Consequently there is no reason why any agency of the Government should be exempted even though there may be special forms of application and should be for the T. V. A. Now, as to the W. P. A., I second very warmly the things that have been said by other witnesses here as to the desirability of the inclusion of the administrative employees of the Works Progress Administration. If there be evils in any agency, if there be practices that are undesirable, they are not corrected by letting them stand; they are corrected by bringing them into the structure of government which actually can deal most effectively with the whole problem of the Government service. In other words, if there be politics, the rules of the Civil Service Commission will meet that situation much more than any other method will meet it. More than that, there is no question that, with thousands and tens of thousands of administrative employees in that organization, the very fact that the organization has continued for the last 5 years, has accomplished as much in the last 5 years as it has, means that there are thousands of people in there who are competent. The Government would unquestionably lose a great deal of their training and experience if they are cut off and not permitted to be included in the classified civil service.

One other point: As to the proviso in section 2 that any incumbent who fails to pass a noncompetitive examination shall lose his job at the end of 6 months. I suppose, gentlemen, that 10 years with 10,000,000 unemployed has made us a little callous, but actually that proviso means that 70,000 people are to be turned out of their jobs. On the figures given by Mr. Flemming, 28 percent of the persons taking noncompetitive examinations under the President's Executive orders have failed to pass. On the estimate of 250,000 persons who will take these noncompetitive examinations-am I correct in that, Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. MITCHELL. We estimate about 125,000.

Mr. BAKER. Then it comes up to about 35,000. Thirty-five thousand people is a considerable number of persons without jobs and whose jobs are taken away by unnecessary legislative action. The point of the matter is that these men and women who are on these jobs now, if their supervisors and administrators are discharging their responsibilities, are doing their work well enough to hold the job. If they are not, they should be fired. You do not need a civil-service status. or lack of it to fire an inefficient employee. That demand can be made of every Government administrator.

We have the situation of people failing to pass examinations, whether competitive or noncompetitive, in relationship to several things besides the examination. For example, the ability to pass an examination can be correlated almost exactly with age. Older people are more inclined to fail than young people. It can be almost exactly correlated with education. A greater percentage of college graduates will pass any examination they take than will the same number of eighth grade graduates pass examinations that they take. So we have the situation that in the low-paid jobs, and the older people, we have an absolute certainty that folks that are doing good work will lose their jobs, and that is a very unfortunate thing. I think actually that nothing will be gained by keeping that proviso in.

The essential thing is to bring the positions under the classified civil service. These older people that will otherwise fail will retire or be out of jobs anyhow in a few years, and the important thing is to get the jobs under the classified civil service, so that we build a structure rather than do serious injury to 35,000 or 40,000 people, whatever the number is, who will be thrown out of their jobs within the next year.

Senator BYRD. Then you do not favor the noncompetitive examination?

Mr. BAKER. No, I think the noncompetitive examination is an excellent idea, Senator. The point is that under the President's Executive order, and other methods that have been used in the past, people who failed in the noncompetitive examination were permitted to stay on the job they had, but they were not subject to transfer or promotion. In other words, they held the job if they were able to do it as long as they could do it.

Senator BYRD. You mean cut out the 6 months provision?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, cut out the provision of throwing them out at the end of 6 months.

Senator GEORGE. What would you say with respect to the provision that "The incumbent of any office or position which is covered" and so forth, "shall not thereby acquire a classified civil-service status except upon recommendation by the head of the agency concerned within one year."

Mr. BAKER. I do not know that I have anything to add to what has been said about that. That is not a clear provision. I think the intention, as Congressman Ramspeck pointed out, was to make that consistent with the proviso beneath. I am inclined to think that the best arrangement would be that the Civil Service Commission shall have the authority to arrange for examinations in all of these agencies as they can give them in an orderly fashion without requiring a recommendation of the department head, because discrimination could develop there. I think that that would be a more workable thing, but the advice of the Civil Service Commission would be more effective than my own on that.

As to the Keller-Nichols amendment, Senator Byrd, on page 3 of the bill, I think what actually was effected by Congressman Nichols' amendment was the inclusion in line 2 of the words "covered into" and in line 3 of the words "transferred, or promoted." If those words were struck out, that would leave the amendment about as Congressman Keller originally presented it and which Congressman Ramspeck said was appropriate. There is no question that that amendment as it now stands, as has been presented to you by many people, is now unworkable. It is an impractical arrangement.

While it is a little bit objectionable from the standpoint of a pure merit system, the political and the social necessities of the Nation probably make necessary the maintenance of a quota system, but it should not be invoked to interfere with the administrative workings of a bill like this.

As to a comment made by Senator Mead at the hearing the other day, it seems to us that a provision might be added-I think the Senator may have thought of an amendment-that would make possible the inclusion in the service of the Census employees, the

emergency Census employees taken from the civil-service list, that the work they do should be considered probational so that when their present service is over, they are eligible for reemployment on other civil-service jobs. That, I think, is the essential point, and it seems to us a very good one.

Other than that, we recommend the bill very heartily. The board of review for efficiency ratings is unquestionably a forward step, and will likely be included, we assume, in further legislation in connection with appeals and review of grievances.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say about the bill, unless there are questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Baker. Mr. Babcock?

STATEMENT OF E. CLAUDE BABCOCK, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION

Mr. BABCOCK. My name is E. Claude Babcock. I am president of the Federal Personnel Association.

The distinguished chairman of the Civil Service Committee of the House was gracious enough to introduce me to the committee a few moments ago by stating that my position on this bill was due to a political motive. That is probably, in large part, true. The chairman failed, however, in quoting my testimony in connection with H. R. 2700 of the Seventy-fifth Congress, to quote the complete testimony I gave, which took a position which I think is consistent with the position I am taking today, which is that this legislation for the extension of civil service to noncivil service agencies is splendid law, provided the legislation is of such a nature as not to cause undue injury to people serving the Government and to the civil-service principle. It is my judgment that those things which might have been done 2 years ago cannot so well be done at present, at least they cannot be done at present without arousing certain definite criticisms which will militate against civil service. I would like to call to the committee's attention two or three basic facts and then allude to a number of amendments which I think the committee has already heard about in some detail, and others which it will hear about.

In the first place, the bill as drawn will cause a tremendous criticism of civil service from all those persons who do look on the public service from a political point of view and who are not of the party now in political power. I think that can be taken for granted from the talks in the House.

Secondly, this bill in its present form provides for the actual firing of 25 percent of those persons who, through influence of one kind or another, at least presumptively in many cases, Democratic, were appointed to the public service. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that should the Congress bring about a situation which fires one out of every four persons appointed to the public service in the emergency agencies, and other agencies, through influence and not civil-service examinations, that that one out of every four will eventually raise a cry which will not be good either for those persons who support the bill or for the general civil-service principle. I think it stands to reason that a person thrown out of a job is a much more

active element in criticism of the legislation and people responsible for the legislation than would be 50 people who are accorded a very intangible advantage by the legislation. So much for the general political aspect.

I do not think that the legislation, in the form now pending before the committee, is defensible to the public, and particularly the informed public which will include, as I said before, if the bill passes in its present form, the 25 percent of the politically appointed emergency personnel.

Senator BYRD. How do you arrive at that figure, Mr. Babcock? Mr. BABCOCK. Senator Byrd, the Civil Service Commission, in its testimony day before yesterday, stated that in its experience in the extension of the civil service under the Executive order of June, 1938-and I have no reason to think that this would be otherwisethe extension of the civil service by noncompetitive examination procedure resulted, actually has resulted in a 28 percent or 27 percent failure in the examinations. Now, this bill provides that those people shall be removed from service. In other words, 27 or 28 percent of the people will fail and will be removed from service.

Senator BYRD. I understood you to say they would be removed for political considerations?

Mr. BABCOCK. I am afraid I did not make myself clear, Senator. These people were appointed-I will not say in all cases-for political considerations, or considerations of friendship, in some cases fraternal associations, in some cases personal association. In other word, they did not compete, they were influenced appointments.

Senator BYRD. If they were influenced appointments, will this legis. tion correct that?

Mr. BABCOCK. This legislation will tend to eliminate those whom the commission finds unable to pass the noncompetitive examination, as Mr. Baker said in his testimony. I agree with that part of it heartily. An examination by the Civil Service Commission is today the best available method of choosing employees, but no one will contend, the Commission itself cannot contend, that it is an absolute method, and many of these people who are now serving the Government well and efficiently are going to fail in these examinations, and they are going to constitute an army of criticism, and after all an army, if it be 35,000 or 70,000, is quite a number to contend with.

Senator BYRD. To go back to the first premise, that they were appointed not by merit but by personal favoritism, should not the Government correct that?

Mr. BABCOCK. I think we haven't the machinery by which that can be accomplished without grave injustice. In other words, I am not defending the appointment of these hundreds of thousands of people without respect to examination by the Civil Service Commission, but here we have a status which must be confronted. That status involves the existence on the pay roll of several thousand people who have no civil-service status, and this bill is an effort to extend to those people civil-service status. The bill, however, does provide for the removal from office of 25 percent of those people because they fail to pass the civil-service test. Now, those people are going to arouse in the Nation, in my opinion, a tremendous sentiment, criticism of the whole civil-service system, because, knowing they have done an acceptable job and having been fired for no other

reason than failing to pass a written test, they will criticize the whole civil-service system.

Senator BYRD. That would have the effect, though, of indicating to the public that the effort is to put employees under the civilservice system who merit it and not by the appointment you referred to that originally occurred because of political favoritism.

Mr. BABCOCK. That is true, Senator, and it also may lead to the conclusion that approximately 25 percent of these appointments were made of inefficient people, which I do not allege is true. It may be said a failure of 25 percent of these politically appointed people to pass even a minimum standard is a definite confession of the appointment of inefficient people. I do not believe that is true. I am not here stating that these people are inefficient. The examination is not severe, Senator, and to the best of my knowledge and belief the examination is an appropriate one to be used in the appointment to the service.

Senator BYRD. What is the percentage allowed for experience?

Mr. BABCOCK. I do not know what percentage weight the Commission will give to the experience element, but I will call your attention to this, that the Commission's testimony stated that even with the credit for experience, its experience has shown that 27 or 28 percent of these people have failed. So even giving them that preference, if you care to call it that, the preference of counting the experience they have had in the public jobs, even with that, 25 or more percent are going to fail.

Senator BYRD. You do not regard the examinations as unnecessarily severe ?

Mr. BABCOCK. No, sir: I do not think so.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Mitchell what is the usual percentage given for the experience rating?

Mr. MITCHELL. Twenty-five percent is the usual rating in that type of positions. It varies for higher positions.

Senator GEORGE. Before you pass that point, I understood the Commission to offer testimony here the first day of the hearing that these noncompetitive examinations were not jokes. They illustrated that fact by the elimination of some 27 or 28 percent of those to whom they did give the examination.

Mr. BABCOCK. I might call attention to the fact that the 27 or 28 percent that failed were given credit for the experience they had on public work. I am not saying that in criticism of the public employees-I want to make that very specific-I am saying that only to draw to your attention the fact that the civil-service examination at best is a relative method of guaranteeing whether or not a man can efficiently perform his duties.

Senator BYRD. Is it your understanding of the bill that the head of the department shall select those whom he thinks should take the civil-service examination?

Mr. BABCOCK. As the bill is written.

Senator GEORGE. What would you say on that point?

Mr. BABCOCK. On that point I agree with the witnesses who have just preceded me, the witnesses from organizations, that there should be a legislative declaration, in my opinion, declaring that these people shall or shall not take the examination, or go through the