or major medical expenses. Only those people with independent incomes can accomplish these minimal, often unavoidable financial requirements on present Federal salaries. Nor can those without independent means live on accumulated savings for more than several years. Our top people in Government, who are not wealthy, often leave public service just when they are well trained and able to make their maximum contributions to the public interest.

A nation which can spend many billions to send a man into space flight ought to be able to find a few thousand to keep good men in the Cabinet, or on the bench, or in the Halls of Congress.

I urge your committee to lead the way.
Respectfully yours,

NEWTON N. MINOW.

Mr. GLADIEUX. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rocco C. Siciliano is here with us. He does not have a prepared statement, since we agreed my presentation would be the official statement of the Board of the National Civil Service League, but he may wish to add some remarks, based on his experience in the Government under President Eisenhower.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear from you, Mr. Siciliano.

Mr. SICILIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here again before this committee, which has so long had the benefit of your distinguished direction.

My comments are very few. I just want to recall some history, if I might. This is not a new problem. It is not something that is confronting the committee for the first time.

It is well remembered, in fact, that the newspapers at one time used to refer to President Eisenhower's Cabinet as made up of nine millionaires and a plumber; this was thought to be a very catching kind of headline. The only trouble was, it was not true. As the years passed it was realized that the Cabinet, as well as the sub-Cabinet officials and as well as the agency and commission heads were not millionaires, nor could they afford to live, for any prolonged period of public service, by using up their savings. As a result we saw in that administration over an 8-year period a great outflux of Cabinet and other Presidential appointee officials; so much so that President Eisenhower, like other prior Presidents and, of course, President Kennedy, recognized that something must be done to try to hold these people and so in 1958 there was recommended to the Congress, by message sent from the President, suggesting that there be established a joint committee made up of members of the public, members of the executive branch, and members of the legislative branch for the purpose of making an overall survey of the entire field of compensation in the public service-not only the executive pay as it is called, but also the judiciary, and, of course, the congressional branch.

Again, in 1959, a similar proposal was submitted, as again I think most of you will remember. The bills were introduced but unfortunately it was felt at that time that it was not either timely or perhaps the factual supporting data was not there. As a result, in 1959 the administration initiated a basic survey to be conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those figures were not ready until after the change of administration and it was in 1961 that the first Bureau of Labor Statistics survey was completed, which brought about the recommendation of President Kennedy for what is now referred to as the comparability principle. The comparability principle is nothing new, but it had factual data to support it. Then, of course, to

bring us right up to date, the Salary Reform Act of 1962, in which act the comparability principle was enacted and made a part of what is now Federal statute.

This comparability principle, unfortunately, has never been extended to the people at the top and it is for them, primarily, that we are here today; namely, to support legislation which would extend the comparability principle to the Federal Executive Pay Act personnel. There are several hundred of them. All I can hope to do is simply recall a little bit of this history to you. I have been outside of Government now for about 4 years, and as I read and hear about the matters that are before this committee for decision. I am only reminded of the fact that this problem is with us still. The problem is still here and unless there can be action of the type that we have suggested and that is in the bill itself the problem will get steadily worse. I think that is about all the comments I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to submit a statement, Mr. Couturier? Mr. COUTURIER. Just a brief statement, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons we think this is crucial is that last year's legislation deferred action on the executive level pending the studies that the Congress directed President Kennedy to collect. President Kennedy has collected these studies. You have seen the report of the Randall Panel. I notice in this year's legislation there is provision for delaying any salary increases above $20,000 until such time as action is taken on the Federal executive level. I think this pinpoints very well the urgency of taking action in this area. It is basically all I wanted to add to what we have said, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GLADIEUX. We are glad to introduce Mr. Couturier. This is his first occasion before this committee. You realize he is taking Jim Watson's place. We hope you will enjoy friendly and productive relationships with him as you have over the years with Jim Watson.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure we will. We are glad to have you before the committee anytime you deem it advisable. We would like to have your advice and counsel from time to time. Are there any questions of the witnesses?

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask any of the gentlemen a question a little bit off the subject. We have under consideration before the committee a bill which would change the regulations regarding dual compensation. The driving force seems to be that the required military personnel are supposedly in short supply in various agencies of the Government and the proposition is made that they be allowed to keep a portion of their retirement fund while receiving full salary.

I wonder if the gentlemen have had any opportunity to study that. Mr. GLADIEUX. Representative Corbett, we have not had an opportunity to study this matter though we are familiar with the issue. I think we should refrain from making a comment on it in an off-hand superficial basis at this time.

Mr. CORBETT. If you would at some later time like to send us a communication I think we would value it.

Mr. GLADIEUX. We would be glad to.

Mr. CORBETT. At the same time if it is in order that we utilize the services of retired people in other agencies of Government, the question comes immediately, why shouldn't the same provisions be ex

tended to legislative employees that might be picked up by the executive. Certainly if there is a shortage of good people to work in the executive branches, and we have had people with great experience in the legislative, enough that we have reached the retirement status, maybe a similar provision ought to be provided to make that attractive to them.

Mr. GLADIEUX. We will be happy to take a look at this legislation and if we have views that we think ought to be expressed, we will be glad to do so. We will submit a statement to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barry?

Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to express my great pleasure at Mr. Gladieux' and Mr. Rocco Siciliano's appearance here before our committee. The statement that you have given, Mr. Gladieux, shows considerable thinking in depth on this rather thorny problem facing the Congress, especially an economy-minded Congress. I think you have pinpointed some of the major problems affecting the possibility of future good government and we need to do something about it.

I would like to ask this: Is your figure, both for congressional salaries and executive salaries, a figure that you really believe we should settle on or is this a figure to get our sights higher that we would come somewhere between our present salaries and the figures suggested?

Mr. GLADIEUX. I understand the question very well, Mr. CongressWe would claim on grounds of equity that the recommendations we have presented to you are wholly justified, that is, of $60,000 for Supreme Court Justices, $50,000 for Cabinet members and $35,000 for Congressmen. I think there is no member of our board of directors but wouldn't in all honesty claim that these levels are justified in light of the responsibilities for the destiny of this country that are carried by those officers. At the same time, we are realistic. All of us have lived and worked in Washington a long time and we know that these probably are going to represent maximum amounts for consideration by the Congress. They may well be scaled down but from our standpoint as a national citizens organization we will stand on our recommendations as being unquestionably merited and in the best interests of the country.

Mr. BARRY. What is your estimate of the view of the American public? You know we hear consistently, every time we spend money on ourselves, either for stationery allowance or to take a trip, perhaps to probe the second step insofar as having already gotten by the test ban-those things are called junkets sometimes-and how do you feel about defending the Congress? What do you think the American public would react to this?

Mr. GLADIEUX. We do not claim to have made a national public opinion poll nor would we claim our finger is on the pulse of public opinion. Nevertheless, we are in touch with a great many people over the Nation, including those whom we covered in our survey, referring to the 600 top-level business and professional leaders of our country.

If we can gage public opinion as expressed through these groups, then we have no hesitation whatsoever in claiming that the public is ready to accept higher compensation levels, recognizing the fact that high Government office, being responsible for the future of this

country, warrants only the best and that these people should be paid more equitably than they are now.

I think you would be surprised and gratified if you could read some of the responses we received from distinguished leaders throughout the country when we asked them "What are your views concerning Cabinet and congressional salaries," The statistical results speak for themselves in our survey, but beyond that are the many, many letters we received from high and distinguised people in the business and professional world expressing in very strong terms the view that the time had arrived when these inequities, these disparities must be rectified and in their judgment they believed the Nation was ready to accept measures substantially increasing salaries of high Government officers.

This is the only way I can answer you. We were encouraged through all the probing we made in terms of public acceptance.

Mr. BARRY. I know from your long experience in business and in Government that you have given this a very thorough going over.

I would like to ask if you have given any consideration to the other school of thought, the one that says that if you pay the least in Government you may get the highest caliber because you are taking someone who has already succeeded in some way and he takes the job as an honor. There is a good deal of thinking, in Great Britain, particularly. This is their philosophy. They pay much less than we get by way of salaries to Members of Parliament. In other countries this is oftentimes true but I just wondered what your thinking was. you think we would get a higher caliber people? Do you think there would be less political machine control of jobs at a legislative level, at the judgeship level, or do you feel we would get a higher caliber if we raise the salary level?

Mr. GLADIEUX. I think the doctrine of low salaries represents fallacious reasoning, but Mr. Siciliano can give the best answer.

Mr. BARRY. We will be happy to hear Mr. Siciliano's comments on that.

Mr. SICILIANO. I do not think our form of government and our democracy was ever developed with the notion there should be a select few to rule and a select few to lead. To the contrary, if anything has been proven in the last 175 years it has been that the direction has been toward making certain that the opportunity was there for any person, regardless of his inherited or acquired wealth, to take over leadership, whether in business or in government.

And I think if modern-day developments are any indication, even Great Britain has learned this to their sorrow. We have heard much about their public school system, yet, we find their school system leaves much to be desired. We can maintain that ours is superior, although it was fashionable some time ago to say we were behind Russia or Europe in our school system methods.

There is no question in my mind, as a practicing lawyer, that our judicial salaries on a Federal scale are terribly inadequate. We have seen many of our best judges resign in recent years when at their peak, at age 50 or so. Judges on the bench find that their personal situation is such that even though their real desire may be to stay on the bench, they must leave in order to satisfy their personal responsibilities.

So I would not place any credence on the concept that our leaders should be those of inherited or acquired financial means.

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Siciliano, when you were in charge of personnel management at the Federal level, I recall there were certain difficulties even at the assistant secretaryship level; is that true?

Mr. SICILIANO. At the assistant secretaryship level we had even greater difficulty to persuade some of the people to stay. In the first flush of victory, any new administration coming in can usually capitalize on that exhilarated feeling and get competent people to come in. This administration is no different from others in this respect. They soon find that the flush of enthusiasm has worn away and it is hard work only that takes over and finally these able people, usually in the sub-Cabinet and agency level-not Cabinet members themselves find the pressures of their family needs are such they have to leave. The recruitment process is becoming almost impossible. This administration is finding that to be the case, I know. The problem of having good people come in as an Assistant Secretary after the glamour of victory has worn off is a difficult task. Thus, the salary should be at least somewhat commensurate with that task of the responsibility.

Mr. BARRY. I concur with what you and Mr. Gladieux have said. I just wanted to get the testimony in the record so that it would indicate we have taken a look at that side. We are spending close to $100 billion a year and I think we need the finest trained minds in the Nation to make representative government successful. We certainly are in this country the beacon light in representative government and if we do not do an effective job, then the whole structure of free government all over the world will suffer from it.

So I think you have rendered a good service, both of you, in coming here and giving testimony based on such solid surveys and opinions of knowledgeable people.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Henderson.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Gladieux, you spoke, in response to our colleague from New York, about public acceptance. I wonder if you meant both in Government and in private enterprise? I would like you to touch on what you think is not only the acceptance but the thinking of the Government employees in the broad areas with regard to top management salaries in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches?

Mr. GLADIEUX. I think that Government employees generally understand the need for top salaries for top management positions, including legislative and judiciary posts.

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you think they are better informed and more motivated in this regard than the general public?

Mr. GLADIEUX. I would think they understand this need more clearly and in better perspective than the general public because they appreciate the weight of the decisions Members of Congress and high executive officers must make.

Mr. SICILIANO. If I might add, they also understand the limitations of their own positions in the Federal service better than those outside the Federal service.