"Had I not already established over a period of many years free-and-easy access to credit with two of my home State banks, it would have been financially impossible to serve out my terms. *** Like most others, I still have a son preparing for college and I see no way on the current salary level to provide adequately for his higher education."

"I have no hesitancy in saying that many highly competent people known to me have been required to leave the Government service against their basic desires and entirely because of financial and economic considerations."

"I would have stayed in Federal service longer because of the challenge and the broad scope of responsibility; however, when you are losing cash at the rate of $6,000 per annum due to inadequate expense allowance, inadequate protection for your family either in the form of pension or insurance benefits, and on top of that losing 50 to 75 percent of your earning capability or comparable positions, 2 years is about all a person can afford to give of his time."

"As part of a team trying to recruit men for the administrative agencies, I found again and again that highly qualified younger men simply could not serve because of financial considerations. They were usually just starting into the high-earnings portion of their career, they had sizable family obligations, and they were concerned not only with the diminution of income while in Washington, but also their loss of position on the promotional ladder in business or their profession."

"In my own case, service was at quite a personal sacrifice. My income was cut substantially and my personal expenses substantially increased. For a man with four young children to pick up and move to Washington, find suitable living accommodations, schools, and in general, to fit into a new community is an expensive process, and, of course, none of this expense is borne by the Government."

"Gave up income and practice netting $25,000, equal to about $35,000 in Washington, extra taxes to date, $5,350. Just had to remortgage house for $4,000.❞ Comments by informed persons concerned with the problem

Clarence B. Randall, former Chairman of the Advisory Panel, says: "A man may have the highest and most dedicated purposes in the world, but he is also a normal human being. He may have parents to support, a home to buy, children to send to college, and a future to provide for. He must not be asked to make the full sacrifice. We on the outside must share his burden."

Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower has declared: "If we are to retain in Government service the highly skilled and able civilian employees who contribute so much to the Nation's strength, it is clear that certain revisions are needed in the statutory pay structures for these employees. ***"

John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, says: "Our National Government today is facing the most complex problems that man has ever experienced. * * * Therefore, the Government must be staffed from bottom to top with high-quality personnel capable of contributing to solutions of these problems in the national interest."

Elmer B. Staats, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget, says: "Executive pay levels must be raised. Higher executive salaries are needed in order that we may pay what is necessary at career levels and in order that the Government may command the caliber of men needed in the sub-Cabinet levels."

Anthony F. Arpaia, former Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, says: "We do have big government and we probably do have too much government, but I think what we, as citizens, should do is insure that however much government we have, it be good. And if we drive good people out of public office we are not only going to have big government, we are going to have bad government.'

Robert Ramspeck, former Congressman and Chairman, Civil Service Commission, and member of the Advisory Panel, says: "We need the best possible people who will serve on the regulatory agencies long enough to acquire the expert knowledge and judgment which such responsibilities require.”

TAA support of increased agency member compensation

In 1956, because of deep concern of both carriers and shippers over the inadequate salaries paid to CAB, FMC, and ICC members, TAA joined other organizations in asking Congress to grant a significant increase. This was accomplished later that year, when Congress authorized a 33-percent boost from $15,000 to $20,000, plus an additional $500 for each Chairman.

In January 1963 the TAA board of directors unanimously endorsed a substantial increase in present pay for such members, to be effected through either salaries or other allowances. Why? To increase attraction for and help maintain competent personnel.

TAA, in February 1963, urged the Randall Advisory Panel to recommend appropriate compensation increases for regulatory agency members concerned with transportation. TAA now strongly encourages Congress to enact this year legislation to such effect, and urges interested organizations to join in this appeal.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

1796: President George Washington: "The compensation of the various officers of the United States in various instances, and in none more than in respect to the most important stations, appears to call for legislative revision * * *. It would be repugnant to the vital principles of our Government virtually to exclude from public trusts talents and virtue unless accompanied by wealth."

1963: The Randall Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems: "We are convinced that all Americans want and expect the highest competence in the conduct of national affairs. We are also convinced that the overwhelming majority of them will support substantial adjustment in executive, legislative, and judicial pay if they have assurance that more adequate compensation will provide a major incentive to our ablest men and women to serve in elective and appointive offices in the Federal Government."

STATEMENT OF MAX H. JORDAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS'

ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,, my name is Max H. Jordan. I am president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, an organization which represents 41,000 regular, substitute, and retired rural carriers in all of the 50 States.

It is a happy occasion for me to be able to appear before this committe and to join Civil Service Commission Chairman John W. Macy, Jr., Deputy Budget Director Elmer Staats, Assistant Postmaster General Richard J. Murphy, who represented the Postmaster General, and other employee organization representatives in supporting salary legislation pending before the Congress. I wish to express appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling these committee hearings and for the interest you and the other members of this committee have shown in the matter of salary legislation for Federal employees.

It is gratifying to be able to appear before this committee in support of the principle of increased compensation for Federal employees and to make common cause with spokesmen for the administration. This committee and the Congress deserve high praise for the provisions of Public Law 87-793 which sets forth the policy and procedures for implementing that policy, to fairly set salary rates for Federal employees. Likewise, the Kennedy-Johnson administration is to be commended for the action taken to comply with pay-setting policy in submitting recommendations to provide comparable pay for Government employees in line with the income of employees in private industry. The recommendations transmitted to the Congress from the President by the Civil Service Commission are admirable in their purpose. Statements given to this committee by Chairman Macy of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Richard J. Murphy, Assistant Postmaster General for Personnel, and Mr. Elmer Staats, of the Bureau of the Budget, emphasize the concern of the administration regarding the matter of providing adequate compensation for employees of the Federal Government.

The many public statements of President Johnson in support of Federal salary legislation reemphasize his concern for the American public welfare. The President has correctly concluded that the business of providing the governmental functions and services for the greatest Nation on earth cannot be turned over to people who are attracted by salaries which are less than adequate.

The salary proposals which are incorporated in H.R. 11049 treat fairly and equitably the rural carriers who provide a complete postal service for 35 million Americans. The National Rural Letter Carriers' Association strongly urges approval by this committee of similar legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to call attention to another provision of H.R. 11049 which appears as an amendment to subsection (a) of section 6007, title 39, United States Code, and reads as follows:

"(a) The Postmaster General shall pay to persons, other than special delivery messengers at post offices of the first class, for making delivery of special delivery mail such fees as may be established by him not in excess of the special delivery fee."

Assistant Postmaster General Murphy commented on this provision of H.R. 11049 before this committee and stated:

"In second-, third-, and fourth-class offices the Department has been authorized to pay persons who deliver specials an amount specified by law. That law, which has not been changed since March 2, 1931, provided these schedules :

(1) Nine cents for first-class mail weighing not more than 2 pounds.

(2) Ten cents for other mail weighing not more than 2 pounds.

(3) Fourteen cents for mail of any class weighing more than 2 pounds but not more than 10 pounds.

"Because the fees prescribed by law have not changed since 1931, in small offices we have not been able to give the full service that a patron expects in all cases to be given to special delivery mail. At today's prices 9 cents for an errand is ridiculous * * *

"H.R. 11049 provides a means for increasing the fee payable to persons delivering specials. That section would permit the Postmaster General to declare what the fee might be at any period of time provided the fee does not exceed the postal rate for special delivery. I think such authority is sound in that it gives us latitude to obtain service, but within a standard set by Congress."

Rural carriers are required to give special delivery service to patrons who may live as much as one-half mile off the route. The only additional pay received for this added service and expense to the carrier is, at present, in accordance with the above-quoted schedule. These amounts were fixed when the special delivery fee on a letter was 10 cents. The special delivery fee on a letter is now 30 cents. but no upward adjustment has occurred in the amount the delivering employee receives even though the special delivery fee charged on letters has been increased by 200 percent.

We recommend that the proposed amendment to existing law be passed in order that the Postmaster General will have authority to adjust special delivery payments to delivering employees to a realistic figure.

Among the provisions of H.R. 11049 is one which would raise the salaries of Members of Congress from the present figure of $22,500 to $30,000 per year. No doubt, this provision will continue to be the subject of more than casual discussion since some Members of Congress appear to be reluctant to support legislation which would result in a salary increase for them.

In an editorial which appeared in the November 2, 1963, issue of the National Rural Letter Carrier, this association urged passage of legislation to raise congressional salaries. A part of that editorial is quoted:

"It has been 9 years since salaries of Members of the Senate and House of Representatives were increased. A study was recently completed by a committee of prominent citizens appointed by President Kennedy which had as it purpose the making of recommendations for realistic compensation schedules for Congress and top executives in Government. The report from this study, known as the Randall report, recommended that congressional salaries be increased to $35.000.

"This is a realistic figure based on modern living costs and fair compensation for a position of such high responsibility. There should be no reluctance on the part of Members of Congress to deal realistically with the matter of their own salaries. The American people possess an innate sense of fairplay. They will support reasonable, equitable compensation for their chosen representatives. To do less would narrow the scope of choice of elected representatives to those individuals who possess personal wealth in sufficient amount to allow them to serve without regard for schedules of compensation.

"Equitable compensation for the elected representatives of the people is a historic problem. In his annual message to Congress on December 7, 1796, President George Washington stated:

""The compensation of the various officers of the United States in various instances, and in none more than in respect to the most important stations, appears to call for legislative revision. If private wealth is to supply the defect of public retribution, it will greatly contract the sphere within which the selection of characters for office is to be made, and will proportionately diminish the probability of choice of men able as well as upright. Besides that, it would be repugnant to the vital principles of our Government virtually to exclude from public trusts talents and virtues unless accompanied by wealth.'

32-884-64 9

"Members of Congress have always been eminently fair and just in their approach to setting compensation schedules for rank-and-file employees. The National Rural Letter Carriers' Association wholeheartedly endorses the same fair and just approach to setting salaries for Senators and Representatives. The elected members of the legislative branch of our Government are called upon to make decisions, almost daily, which directly affect the welfare of 190 million Americans, and indirectly all people of the world. Their compensation should be in keeping with the awesome responsibilities of their position."

Mr. Chairman, the amount of salary increase finally decided upon for Members of Congress is certainly a judgment for the Congress itself to make. The National Rural Letter Carriers' Association gives unqualified support to realistic salaries for the elected representatives of the American people.

Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this testimony on behalf of the NRLCA. We trust that the committee may see fit to approve a bill as early as practicable and that the Senate may see fit to pass salary legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing is recessed until Monday morning at 9. (Whereupon, the committee recessed at 9:53 a.m., to reconvene Monday morning, May 11, 1964, at 9 a.m.)

FEDERAL PAY LEGISLATION

MONDAY, MAY 11, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 6202, New Senate Office Building, Senator Olin D. Johnson (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Johnston, Monroney, Yarborough, Randolph, Carlson, and Fong.

Also present: William P. Gulledge, staff director and counsel; Richard Fuller, professional staff member; David Minton, staff member; and Frank A. Paschal, minority clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is a continuation of the committee's current series of hearings on Federal pay adjustment legislation. The next hearing will be Thursday, May 14, at 9 a.m.

I see we have here with us this morning the Honorable Richard Murphy, Assistant Postmaster General for Personnel. We are glad to have you with us, Mr. Murphy. Come forward and just proceed in the manner which best suits you.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. MURPHY, ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF PERSONNEL; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. HERBERT BLOCK, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION DIVISION; MRS. ANNE P. FLORY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION DIVISION; AND ADAM WENCHEL, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Monroney.

The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad if you would introduce the people with you so we will have it for the record.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I am privileged this morning, Senator, to have with me Dr. Herbert Block, who is the Director of our Compensation Division, and also Mrs. Anne Flory, who is the Assistant Director of the Compensation Division, and Mr. Adam Wenchel, Associate General Counsel.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Senator Monroney and members of the staff for getting up so early this morning and holding this hearing. I know that you have a lot of work ahead of you today, and we are deeply grateful indeed.

We are also greatly privileged to be able to appear before you this morning and to give you the views of the Postmaster General, and of Mr. Belen and the Post Office Department, on the need for Federal salary reform in the year 1964.