men. The new measure, embodying a number of compromises and carrying no pay hikes for Senators and Representatives, should be enacted in some form. The reasons are several, as President Johnson outlined in a letter the other day to Speaker McCormack in the House. The Chief Executive argues that the Federal Government must compete in employing competence with industry, business, education, research agencies, foundations, and private professions. These areas of employment attract the best brains and most able individuals because they pay well; Government because it does not meet the salary scales of these other areas finds itself increasingly hard pressed to engage and retain competent people. Contrary to what may be common impression, Federal employment is not increasing as rapidly as private and State and local government employment. During the past decade while the Nation's population arose 17 percent and nongovernment employment ascended by 10 percent, Federal civil employees increased by only 7 percent. In State and local governments the percentage of increase was 65. Granted there are overstaffed bureaucracies in some Federal Government areas and that there could be sizable trimmings without any loss of effectiveness, still the need for the best brains at the top and in the higher levels of Federal functioning is much more pressing today than ever. In trying to make his program for greater economy work, President Johnson wrote, "I need first-class managers who can tighten organizations, simplify procedures, trim waste, and inspire maximum effort. It is false economy to offer salaries that will attract the mediocre but repel the talented." And so it is. In other words, Congress should come to embrace the principle that comparable pay must be the Federal Government's policy in employment; comparable pay if the necessary competence and ability to operate an increasingly complex Government is to be induced and retained. And for those individuals who insist that Federal Government is getting too big and too costly, a reminder: There are now 13 Federal employees for every 1,000 Americans and 10 years ago the proportion was 14 for every 1,000. And as the President suggests, if more able people are hired the way is open for still further reduction of the ratio. [From the Minneapolis Morning Tribune, Apr. 13, 1964] NEW LIFE FOR FEDERAL PAY INCREASES President Johnson feels that it is false economy to pay less than adequate salaries to those holding posts of great responsibility and we agree with him. Perhaps, with a little pushing from the White House, we may see many salary inequities corrected at this session. There is a chance that this Congress will pass a pay increase bill after all. The House defeated one such bill last month, fearing that the inclusion of a $10,000 pay increase for Members of Congress might have harmful political repercussions. The new measure which the House Civil Service Committee is working on would drop this increase to $7,500. It would also provide that the raise would not become effective until next January 1, so that voters would have a chance to react to the bill in the November elections. There will be other changes in the revised bill which will provide pay increases for some 1,700,000 Federal employees. One of its chief objectives is to render administrative and policymaking jobs more attractive by making the salaries paid more comparable to those in private industry. This is important if the Federal Government is to recruit and retain men and women of high competence. [From the St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press, May 2, 1964] PAY HIKE DESERVED WASHINGTON.-A number of pretty able public servants have recently announced their intention of leaving Government service and taking jobs with private industry. They all gave the same reason for their change of employment. Money. To the average person sitting on the sidelines, Government pay doesn't seem so bad. As a matter of fact, looking over the Government salary schedules, the average guy would probably mutter "I should have it so good" and he'll wonder 32-88464--12 how in the name of blazes people can go broke on the salaries they command down here in Washington. The economics of Government service do not fall into the normal pattern. When a man or woman assumes a middle echelon or higher post, he or she assumes with it responsibilities which are not subsidized by the Government. An assistant secretary of a large Government department simply cannot live any old place. He must have a decent house, for entertainment will of necessity be one of the more important functions of his job. He does not command the expense account which he might have were he in private industry. The entertainment of foreigners or of interested Congressmen and Senators or of people from out of town comes out of his own pocket. Over the course of a year, those expenses mount up and come to a considerable sum of money. But Washington It's easy to say, well in that case just don't entertain. doesn't work that way. The Government servant's constituency is the people of the United States and he must take care of them. He doesn't have to cater to every Tom, Dick, and Harry but there are an awful lot of Tom, Dick, and Harrys who expect him to go out of their way for him. Knowing this he buys them a lunch or a drink or takes them to dinner and Uncle Sam won't on the majority of the occasions pick up the tab. Far too many of the higher officials must for one reason or another maintain two residences. They don't expect to live here in Washington forever, so they keep a toehold in the town or city from which they came. This naturally increases their cost of living. Some don't absolutely have to have two residences, but in the case of most Congressmen and Senators it is a necessity. Some don't know whether to move their families here or to keep them in their home States. The net result is that far too many of them are financially strained because they are in one way or another supporting two households. Many a neophyte has eyed Washington salaries and has come here believing that he was about to raise his standard of living only to find that he was worse off than before he joined the Government. The Government servant has to look decent, his clothes cannot be threadbare; if he has a job above a certain level, he must have a tuxedo and when he accepts invitations to other people's houses he is expected to return the invitation. He can't live in the boondocks and the fringe requirements of his job keep nibbling away at his basic pay envelope. Too many good men are feeling the pinch and are finding that a few years in Washington have left them with invaluable experience, but with savings accounts gone and a nice hefty debt. It would be best if the Federal pay raise bill be passed. Congressmen and Senators should not be leery of raising their own pay. Any reasonable man knows that they need the extra money. [From the Scranton (Pa.) Tribune, Apr. 21, 1964] UNDERPAID PUBLIC SERVANTS Whenever someone musters enough courage to say the Nation should pay important governmental officials a salary commensurate with their responsibility, ability, and income they could earn in private enterprise he risks the wrath of all who believe that people in government are overpaid. But a real problem exists and if a few top administrators should resign their positions for financial reasons the weakness would receive dramatic emphasis. According to one Washington estimate, there are at least a dozen high level Federal officials in the Capital today who are talking of quitting because they can't maintain their families on their income. Men in the $20,000 to $25,000 bracket, who hold positions ranging from deputy assistant secretaryships to Cabinet offices, are particularly affected. It is said that Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, has lost $150,000 in earnings in 3 years and is having difficulty on his $25,000 a year salary. He may resign after the November election. Walter W. Heller, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, is described as being in a bind. Trying to maintain two households, one in Washington and one at home in Minnesota, while putting three children through college, takes careful management on a $20,500 a year salary. The Undersecretary of Labor, John F. Henning, who earns $22,500 a year, figures he needs all of that and more. He has seven children lined up for the costly course through college. The cases outlined are not exceptional, but reflect a situation disturbing to President Johnson, who is asking Congress to grant pay increases of up to $10,000 a year to ease the burden on this class of public servant. The average person finds it difficult to believe that relatively well-salaried men would have trouble making ends meet, but that is precisely the case. Prestige, power, and the feeling of doing public service go with the Washington jobs, but they will not put a son or daughter through school. Also, the positions require that one dress well, do his share of entertaining, contribute liberally to charities and $100-a-plate political dinners and otherwise meet expenditures which eat up a salary rapidly. Mr. KEATING. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have inserted in the record a letter from Andrew J. Biemiller, director, Department of Legislation of the American Federation of Labor, in which he calls attention to the need for a pay raise, and in which he quotes the fact that Mr. Meany, who sat on the Randall committee, is strongly in favor and has believed that this report proves that such an increase is necessary. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Biemiller's letter will be placed in the record at this point. (The letter is as follows:) AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Hon. OLIN JOHNSTON, Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I should like to take this opportunity to urge the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, of which you are the chairman, to take early action on legislation to raise the basic compensation of Federal classified and postal employees and of Federal executives. Federal pay legislation is legislation to which President Johnson has assigned a high priority for action at this session of the Congress. As you know, President Meany was a member of the Randall commission and signed the unanimous report of that commission which recommended basic revisions in the pay schedules for Federal executives, Members of Congress, and the judiciary. In our view, a further general readjustment of Federal pay schedules is also necessary at this time. The hearings presently being conducted before your committee are not restricted within the framework of any particular bill or bills to raise Federal employee salaries. We have had occasion, however, to consider H.R. 11049, introduced by Representative James Morrison, of Louisiana, which has been reported favorably by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Since this bill will, if passed by the House of Representatives, come before the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, we would like to indicate here our position with respect to it. Although we favor larger increases in pay for Federal executives, Members of Congress, and the judiciary than are provided for in H.R. 11049, the AFL-CIO supports the basic provisions of this bill. Salary increases provided for under existing law are already outdated, and legislation along the lines of H.R. 11049, with such changes as we suggest, should receive early action by the Congress. We should like to call the attention of the committee to the apparently inadvertent omission of the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service from the list of Federal executives to whom level III of the Federal executive salary for which the recommended annual rate of basic compensation would be $29,000 would be made applicable. We believe this omission is inadvertent since the bill would apply level III of the Federal executive salary schedule to the Chairman of the National Mediation Board, an agency which provides mediation and conciliation service in labor disputes affecting railroads and airlines and the unions in these industries and the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, as I am sure you know, provides mediation and conciliation service, and makes available a panel of arbitrators, to deal with labor disputes in industry generally, other than railroads and airlines. In our view, this omission should be corrected, and level III of the Federal executive salary schedule should be made applicable to the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. We appreciate very much this opportunity to express our views on this very necessary and desirable legislation. Sincerely yours, ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director, Department of Legislation. Mr. KEATING. I would also like to file a statement by John Griner, the president of the AFGE, which recommends a couple of changes in the legislation, and Mr. Griner would like to address himself briefly to these changes. The statement is a little bit more detailed, and he will explain just why he feels that these changes are necessary. Mr. Griner's statement has to do with two amendments that his organization, the American Federation of Technical Engineers, is submitting. The other people who are appearing with me this morning would also like the right to file a statement. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have anyone that wishes to file a statement. The statement of Mr. Griner will be inserted in the record at this point. (The prepared statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GovERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS This statement is presented to convey to the members of this committee the viewpoint of the American Federation of Government Employees and of the American Federation of Technical Engineers, both affiliates of the AFL-CIO, with respect to the bill, H.R. 11049, a bill designed to increase salaries at all levels of the Federal and District of Columbia Governments. The AFGE and the AFTE indorse wholeheartedly the statement submitted to this committee by the chairman of the legislative committee of the Government employees' council, with which our two organizations are affiliated. In this statement we are merely adding to the broader presentation of the representative of the GEC so as to highlight certain provisions of particular importance to our membership. The general intent and objectives of H.R. 11049 meet the criteria of our two organizations for the groups which are affected. These criteria may be summed up in the statement that salaries should provide renumeration commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of the positions to be compensated and should, to the greatest extent practicable, be no less than the rates for similar positions in private enterprise. The AFGE and the AFTE indorse the provision in the bill for higher salaries for Members of Congress. We indorse not only the increase of $7,500 provided in this bill, but the $10,000 raise which was in the bill previously considered by the House. One should not lose sight of the fact that Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives are in fact the Board of Directors of the greatest business enterprise in the world, and as such are responsble for and must authorize the expenditure of nearly $100 billion annually. Large corporations having total expenditures of far less than that amount pay considerably higher salaries to the persons who direct their operations. Similarly we believe that there is equal justification for raising the compensation paid the members of our Federal courts, as well as the heads of the Federal departments and agencies, their immediate assistants, and others in responsible executive positions. The bill 11049 provides many benefits to many persons, but it has some weaknesses and certain objectionable features which we believe should be called to the attention of this committee. A salary schedule which is fair and just, necessarily reflects the rates provided for similar positions in private industry. In addition, such a schedule also will maintain a regular progression from the lowest to the topmost levels of the compensation schedule. Such an even progression of rates does not prevail throughout the rate schedule for classified employees which is provided in H.R. 11049. This lack of uniformity and adequacy is indicated in table 1 attached to this statement. The distribution of classified empolyees among the 18 grades of the general schedule is presented in table 2. This distribution indicates that 322,378 employees, or slightly under 30 percent of all classified employees, are in grades GS-9 to GS-12, inclusive. Analysis of the schedule indicates that for a sizable number of employees occupying positions in the middle grades of GS-9, GS-10, GS-11, and GS-12, the increases provided in this bill would be less than 3 percent over the rates currently in effect. As indicated in table 3, more than 270,000 employees, or 25 percent of all employees in positions subject to the Classification Act, will receive less than a 3-percent increase. The increase will be less than 2.5 percent for 14 percent of the classified employees, and 6 percent of those in these four grades will not receive an increase of as much as 2 percent. The rates which should be provided to give these employees at least 3 percent are stated in table 4. In these four grades are approximately half the more than 100,000 employees in all types of engineering positions. These grades also include more than onefourth of the 100,000-odd employees in accounting and budget work, about 10,000 in legal positions, nearly half the 32,000 in investigating work, and nearly half of the 30,000 working in the physical sciences. In addition, there are many employees in medical, nursing, personnel, and general administrative work occupying positions classified in grades GS-9 to GS-12 inclusive. It is also incumbent upon us as the representative of a large group of classified employees in engineering and scientific positions to direct the attention of this committee to an apparent inequity in section 123, which would amend section 504 of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962. This potential inequity may be explained as follows: Section 504 (a) of the 1962 act empowers the Civil Service Commission, by authority delegated by the President, to establish a new salary range of rates above those in the regular rate range of a grade in which positions for which recruitment and retention are difficult may be classified. The Commission must make a determination that a particular occupational class of positions is entitled to a higher rate range because the Government is handicapped in the recruitment or retention of well qualified persons in those positions. For positions in GS-9, for example, recruitment would ordinarily place the new appointee at rate 1, or at a salary of $7,030. However, the determination of recruitment or retention difficulty places the initial rate at regular rate of GS-9, or $7,950. The determination the Commission is required to make is that $7,950 is needed to recruit for that position, not that the individual must be brought in at rate 5 of the grade. And here is the inequity which is likely to occur as a result of the wording of section 123 of H.R. 11049. Section 504 (a) of the Salary Reform Act presently provides that the rate "shall be initially adjusted * * * in accordance with conversion rules and regulations prescribed by the President ***" As the proposed subsection 504(d) is worded in section 123 of the bill, one may not assume that the fifth rate, or $7,950, would be converted to the corresponding fifth rate of $8,190 in the H.R. 11049 salary schedule. The reason is that the Commission has made a determination that $7,950 is the rate needed for recruitment. Having made that determination, the Commission could not, as we read the bill, be placed in the position of repudiating its previous determination and now agree that the $7,950 should be arbitrarily raised to $8,190, not because recruiting conditions had changed but merely because rates generally had been increased. We believe that this section should at least be clarified to make certain that perhaps as many as 250,000 or 300,000 employees may receive the increases which are provided by the bill. It is realized that the present hearing is confined to adjustment of salaries. In passing, however, we desire to make one brief reference to the requirement in section 701 (a) (B) of the Classification Act, as amended by the Salary Reform Act, that an employee's work must be "of an acceptable level of competence as determined by the head of the department" before he may receive a within-grade increase. |