Statement Opposing the Confirmation of Federal Employees Making Over $4,500 a Year

MY ATTENTION has been called to the provisions of S. 575. I desire to express my unqualified opposition to this proposed legislation.

The proposal for Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of all employees receiving more than $4,500 per annum presupposes Congressional responsibility for the operations of executive agencies. An agency head is responsible for the success or failure of his program. This accountability is dissipated if responsibility for the appointment of employees is divided.

Under our form of government the appointment of those officers who, in a fundamental sense, determine policy has generally been subject to Senate confirmation. But determination of policy is not synonymous with the exercise of administrative discretion. Neither does it include work performed by the vast number of technical and scientific personnel who occupy positions which fall above a salary figure of $4,500 or any other arbitrary amount.

The practice of the Federal Government with respect to the selection and appointment of non-policy-determining employees has evolved over a period of sixty years. This development culminated in the passage of the Ramspeck Act of 1940 requiring the appointment of practically all such employees on the basis of merit under the Civil Service Act. To turn the clock back by reversing this decision would be folly in time of peace. In war it would be little less than tragic.

Equally important are the practical considerations which make this bill undesirable. More than 33,000 positions would be subject to Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation under the terms of the proposed legislation. I do not have the time personally to examine the qualifications of the individuals whose appointments would in such circumstances have to be approved by me.

It is equally evident that the Congress does not have the time. Senate confirmation would either become a rubber-stamp process or a task of such magnitude as to leave little time for the conduct of legislative business and to delay appointments to essential war jobs.

The experience with confirmation of War Manpower Commission appointments as required by its appropriation act is significant. On January 11, 1943, thirty names were nominated to the Senate. No action was taken until February 15, when twenty-one names were confirmed and one was sent back to the committee.

At the present time, almost six weeks after the submission of the nominations, action still remains to be taken in eight cases. If the proposed bill is enacted into law, with the inevitable multiplication of delays of this character, the American people will not fail to realize that it is the legislative branch of the Government that is thus holding up vigorous prosecution of the war program.

This bill, if enacted into law, would also adversely affect the recruitment of persons for key positions. It would lay all of us open to the charge that we are playing politics with the war program. We cannot permit confidence in the Government to be undermined in this manner. Neither can we afford to add the obstacle of Senate confirmation to other difficulties which confront us in our efforts to secure the best talent of the Nation for the Government service.

During the past two and a half years, in the face of a steadily dwindling reserve of manpower, the Government service has expanded from less than one million employees to approximately three million. Undoubtedly in view of the large numbers involved, the limited supply and the speed required, mistakes have been made. Corrective steps have been taken and will continue to be taken to eliminate abuses and to strengthen the machinery for the application of the merit principle to the recruitment, advancement, and removal of employees.

In our zeal to correct mistakes, however, we should not make the error of undermining the entire administrative structure that has been erected for the conduct of the war. Confirmation of administrative, professional, and technical employees by a legislative body is the very antithesis of the merit system and would sweep away years of civil service progress. For these reasons I urge that this bill not be enacted into law.