We do not believe that Federal pay, in the upper levels certainly, can ever hope to equal that of the more affluent corporations. Nor do we think it should. We are seeking instead a more modest goal in which there is a proximation of parity. The principle of "statutory comparability" has already been established by law. We are now looking to its implementation.

A mass of evidence points up the fact that existing Federal remuneration at these levels is incompatible with compensation standards in business and, indeed, even in other fields of public service. It is shockingly disproportionate with the responsibilities of high national office. You are familiar, I am sure, with the findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics which are the basis for the proposed adjustments at all levels of the statutory schedules. A special study conducted by the Civil Service Commission in 1962 showed a startling gap between Federal salaries at grades GS-16, 17, and 18 and those salaries paid by large corporations. The study which covered 19 large firms showed a middle pay rate for grade GS-16 equivalent positions in these firms of $28,000; for GS-17 equivalent positions, $35,500; and for GS-18 equivalent positions, $44,500, which, of course, is more than twice the current salary for Federal positions in grade GS-18. The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems has recommended a Federal executive salary structure ranging up to a Cabinet secretary salary of $50,000; congressional pay of $35,000; and Federal judiciary pay from $35,000 to $60,500. Such proposals, were they to be adopted, would increase the Federal payroll by an infinitesimal amount.

I have enjoyed over the years a number of close associations with the members of the International City Managers' Association, for whom, incidentally, I have the highest respect. I find theirs a most important profession, and one that is far from being overpaid. (Most of us familiar with the views of local city boards know the sharp eyes they have for econmoy.) Yet many members of the city manager profession receive more for their efforts than secretaries of departments, heads of bureaus, and of major American activities both at home and overseas, and, indeed, U.S. Senators. In 1963, for example, the median salary of managers in cities in the 250,000 to 500,000 population group, was $25,500; in cities from 100,000 to 250,000, it was $21,000. The city managers are well worth their hire, but so, also, are you and other capable public servants who serve the Federal needs. I would personally like to see those of you on the congressional side receiving twice your current salaries. You more than earn it. As a taxpayer, I feel very much in your debt.

I have also done considerable work with public administration systems in underdeveloped areas. In many of these countries, government service is not only of the highest status but it is also comparatively well rewarded. I resist the notion that to be modern a country must penalize those who helped make it so. In closing, I should like to underscore the agreement of our chapter with the statements in the President's letter of March 17 to the Speaker of the House of Representatives urging the House to reconsider improved pay adjustment legislation. "It is false economy," he wrote, "to offer salaries that will attract the mediocre but repel the talented." And later: "The dollars paid to attract brains and ability to the Federal services will come back to the American people many times over in more economical and effective Government."

I can think of no group more worthy of higher pay than those who provide governmental leadership in these difficult times-legislative, executive, and judicial-unless, of course, it be university professors.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you happen to know whether the Randall Commission, in writing its report, especially for the judiciary department, took into consideration that a judge with 15 years' service who retired at 65 years of age can draw full pay the rest of his life, and also a judge at 70 years of age can retire with 10 years' service at full pay for life? Do you know if the Commission took into consideration all those emoluments?

Dr. BROWN. I don't happen to know, Mr. Chairman, although I read the Randall group's report again last evening in preparation for this appearance. Still I have to tell you that I fail your question. I don't know, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know either whether the Commission went into that particular fringe benefit or not. Also, a widow of a judge draws 50 percent of his salary as long as she lives.

Senator MONRONEY. I appreciate very much what you had to say about the executive and legislative salaries, and your statement, as a teacher and an expert, an adviser, in public administration, that the salary scale for our academic leaders is so low and seems to lack even greater comparability with salaries in the business world, and the political salaries that attach to the governmental agencies, both State and National.

Is there a general effort to more or less equalize, or to increase the academic salaries of our leaders in this field?

Dr. BROWN. Yes; there is. Considerable attention is being given this matter. I noticed recently among the comparability figures that the salaries of university presidents have increased substantially in the last 5 or 7 years, which is, of course, appropriate. The raising of the ceiling on the administrative side will result in professorial increases as well.

Also, if you have children in a university, you will note that tuition seems to be constantly increasing. A considerable part of this is coming back to the professors in salary. I am very happy to say that the American Association of University Professors and other organiaztions of this type have given serious attention to the matter of teaching salaries. The need for better pay is being brought as a result very much to the attention of the public, Senator, as well it should be.

I recognize that you, being a former member of a university faculty

Senator MONRONEY. No, sir.

Dr. BROWN. I thought you were, sir.

Senator MONRONEY. Unfortunately, I am not, but I do think this lack of comparability shows out even more strongly.

Dr. BROWN. It does, sir. It should, of course, be noted that there is a current demand in many fields of knowledge for the advice and assistance of university professors which has been greater than in previous years. When we mention a teaching salary, this, of course, doesn't represent total earnings, even from the university.

Senator MONRONEY. They are free to take extra labors for specialization, advice, and consultation.

Dr. BROWN. Yes, sir; within limits.

The CHAIRMAN. I want you to know this, Dr. Brown: In asking professors' salaries, I meant to bring out that, in my opinion, teachers, not only in the colleges, high schools, junior high schools, and on down into the lower grades, in my opinion, are more underpaid than in any other profession. I think that we in America are suffering on account of it. Because many, when they see they can make twice as much in some other field, although they may be very competent teachers, go into some other profession. The cream of the crop leaves. The lack of adequate salaries is hurting our educational system in the United States.

Dr. BROWN. We appreciate this statement very much, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Thank you, Dr. Brown.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have an observation.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Senator.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Brown, it seems to me that the problem in the field of schools has become one of the need for more taxes in the public field, more grants in the field of private universities, and the type of thing that we passed this year with the Federal Higher Education Facilities Act, where the Federal Government, both grants and lends money to build classrooms, libraries, and laboratories-such means being available under the National Defense Education Act, and other acts of that nature. I note that in the past 10 years, the contribution that student fees make to higher education has increased from 44 percent of the total cost to 51 percent. Don't you think that in the field of student fees, we have reached or passed the law of dimishing returns, that the students themselves are bearing now a high enough percentage? I personally think they pay a much too high percentage of the cost of higher education when you consider that the students are paying 51 percent of the cost of it.

Dr. BROWN. Senator, I am not an economist, and I am not conversant with all of the elements of this situation. We do have some data to the effect that there are very few persons who remain out of colleges because they can't pay the tuition. On the basis of what I know, I am not sure that I agree with you fully. I think that there is a limit to what should be paid in tuition but I am not quite sure that it has yet been reached, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Brown, I must take sharp issue with you on that. I have been a member of the Senate Education Subcommittee for 6 years, and in hearings, year after year after year, it has been shown that the highest 30 percent in grades of high school students, half are never able to go to college because of the expense; and the tuition cost of private universities in this country has doubled in the past 10 years. Of course, State universities and State schools are much cheaper, but over on that side, tuition in State-supported schools has doubled also in 10 years. The great cost of higher education is the thing that is barring the doors to millions of students in America today. I don't think there is a doubt about that, because we have been having testimony for years on it from economists, from college presidents, college teachers, and to raise that factor that in this highly needed increase in salaries, because of the number, percentage of doctorates, among the total university faculty, is decreasing year by year. At the same time, I think in the realm of students' fees, we have reached the point where the educational system is being harmed more than it is helped by this constant kiting of students' fees each year.

Dr. BROWN. Well, Senator, I should like to make it clear that my comment does not mean that those of us in education aren't appreciative of the efforts that are being made-and we feel that they are quite appropriate by Congress and others in support of the colleges and universities. Our whole society gets a great deal from the universities in addition to the direct contribution that they make through the educational processes. We feel in the universities that it is essential that an increasing part of this burden be paid by those who profit from it, public as well as private.

I would like you to understand that I am very much in support of the position that you and others here have taken.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, I feel that we must make a great effort in education, higher education, and the American people should pay for it, instead of forcing students to get some kind of FHA plan, Federal Government guarantee, and to mortgage these young people for the first 10 years of their lives. That is a growing trend, and I think it is a bad sociological and educational trend in our education. Of course, that is getting a little bit, Mr. Chairman, off this subject

here.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. It is good to bring such things out in the open, regardless of what the forum is.

I certainly thank you, gentlemen, for coming to us this morning. Dr. BROWN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Leo F. Gowen on behalf of the engineers and scientists at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory.

STATEMENT OF LEO F. GOWEN, MISSILE ENGINEER, NAVAL ORDNANCE LABORATORY, WHITE OAK, MD.

Mr. GowEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Leo F. Gowen. I am an associate project manager of the SUBROC missile program at Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Md., and I represent a group of engineers and scientsists who wish to urge the correction of a gross inequality brought about by the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962.

The present pay law provides for cash equivalent of at least two in-step increases when an employee is promoted. The inequality occurred because the law did not go on to provide appropriate adjustments for those promoted in the recent period prior to the effective date of the law. This has given rise to an embarrassing situation which finds those promoted sooner now making substantially less than their juniors, who were promoted from the same grade after October 14, 1962. The differential amounts to as much as $1,500 per year. The senior employee never catches up under the present law. In fact, in some cases employees receive higher salaries who received their promotions as late as 3 years after their fellow employees. The inequality is most obvious when the senior employee is in the position of supervising the higher paid junior.

I would like to quote from Joseph Young's "The Federal Spotlight" in the Star:

Ironically, the most potent argument made by the Kennedy administration in favor of its pay reform plan was that it would place the Government in a much better position to attract and retain the best scientists and engineers.

But the new pay law has backfired, with bitterness and resentment on the part of many engineers and scientists, dangerously affecting morale. Some senior scientists and engineers are earning less than their juniors.

In many cases Government engineers and scientists are worse off salarywise on being promoted than they would be in the lower grade they were in. It's hard to believe but true.

Gentlemen, I think we can all agree that this situation is ridiculous. We would like to propose a solution to this problem which effectively eliminates the only objection raised to correcting this unbelievable inequality; that is, the cost of its correction. Most proposals to date have provided for retroactive pay adjustment back to January 1962. We agree this would be costly.

We propose that a provision be added to H.R. 11049 stating in essence, that—

*** On the effective date of this legislation, no employee holding a position immediately prior to October 14, 1962, shall receive a lower salary than he would now be receiving if he had been promoted to said position on October 15, 1962. No retroactive pay would be obligated by this provision prior to the effective date of this legislation.

This provision would place employees in their proper salary levels based on seniority in grade. It would raise the morale of many deserving employees who, because of their ability, received raises prior to October 1962. To take care of the employees most seriously affected by this inequality, this provision is suggested to apply to those promoted after January 1, 1961, and, of course, before October 14, 1962a 22-month period.

A relatively small group of employees require coverage by this provision. Those affected are GS-12's and above who were given a grade promotion during the suggested 22-month period discussed above and were in the top of their previous grade at the time of the promotion. We understand the reluctance on the part of Congress to obligate funds retroactively. But we can see no conceivable objection to paying the employees their just compensation, in the future, on a par with their fellow employees. In fact, we think correction of inequality in the present law should be the first order of business of any new pay legislation.

Section 114 of H.R. 11049, provides a similar adjustment for postal employees as that herein proposed for civil service employees. We are pleased that Congress is giving these employees their just compensation. However, by all sense of logic and justice the similar plight of the civil service employee cannot be ignored.

Gentlemen, I respectfully request your favorable consideration of the proposed provision.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Monroney?

Senator MONRONEY. I wish you could elaborate a little bit on just how we got into this disparity, which is still not quite clear to me. This was the pay act going back to 1962?

Mr. GoWEN. Yes; 1962. When you changed grades, you had to get at least one step increase, and this often amounted to much less compensation than at present. In the GS-14 level, for instance, it was about $250, and under the present law, it would be more like $1,200. Senator MONRONEY. It was $200 a step under the 1962 act? Mr. GowEN. Approximately $250; yes.

Senator MONRONEY. $250?

Mr. GowEN. Yes.

Senator MONRONEY. And at present, it is how much?
Mr. GoWEN. In the order of $1,200 at present.

Senator MONRONEY. A step?

Mr. GoWEN. Yes. It places them in the third step at the GS-14 level, a new employee getting a promotion from the top of grade 13 would go into the first step of grade 14, under the old law, and under the present law, those who were promoted after October 14, 1962, would be placed in the fourth step of grade 14, when they were promoted from the top step of the grade below.