Army-Air Force wage board determined that a 8-cent increase was in order for Flagstaff, Ariz., to be effective on the first pay period after May 22, 1963, while the increase for Phoenix, Ariz., was only 5 cents to be effective on the first pay period after May 21, 1963.

The present wage board procedure is complicated and very expensive. It is the cause of much dissatisfaction and impairment of morale. Questions are constantly arising regarding the area covered by the local surveys and the firms and establishments from which wage data are obtained. It is quite natural to expect that the employees in the 5-cent area do not like it if they do not get the same increase as the employees in the 8-cent area. There is dissatisfaction when a business establishment near the area which pays relatively high wages, is not contacted for data regarding the wages it pays.

The complications and the expenditures under the locality wage board survey system are going to be increased greatly by developments in connection with collective bargaining under the provisions of Executive Order 10988. Various groups of Federal employees are obtaining exclusive recognition under Executive Order 10988 and they are entering into negotiations which will have an effect upon the whole locality, piecemeal, wage board survey system.

No one can foretell just how complicated or expensive the procedures may become. That they will become more complicated and expensive there can be no doubt. Already reams of paper are being used in the preparation of collective bargaining contracts and many hours of the official time of Government officials and employees are being consumed in negotiating basic and supplemental contracts. These complications and expenditures can be reduced by amending the Classification Act of 1949 as amended to provide for the establishment of a single national wage board pay plan. We strongly urge such an amendment.

KEEPING THE PROMISE MADE TO CLASSIFICATION ACT EMPLOYEES

The Salary Reform Act of 1962, Public Law 87-793, was a promise to Classification Act employees that their salaries would be adjusted in order to give effect to the policy that the salary rates would be kept comparable with private enterprise salary rates for the same levels of work. This assured them of treatment somewhat similar to that accorded wage board employees, who far a long time have had their pay adjusted according to prevailing local rates of pay. We think that this promise should be kept, and that the keeping of it will add to the security of the Nation at a time when high quality personnel are needed in dealing with the crucial problems which confront our country.

I thank the chairman and the members of the committee for this opportunity to state our views on the legislation now being considered by the committee, and I urge a favorable report on H.R. 7552 and the enactment of the bill into law.

(The following exhibit was submitted by the witness :)

Herlong, Calif..

Honolulu, Hawaii_
Milwaukee, Wis..
New Orleans, La.

Texarkana, Tex...
Shreveport, La..
Tuscaloosa, Ala..
Birmingham, Ala..
Charlotte, N.C.
Roswell, N.Mex.
Las Cruces, N. Mex..
Santa Fe, N. Mex.
Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Alamogordo, N. Mex.
El Paso, Tex.
Providence, R.I.
San Francisco, Calif.
Agana, Guam

Spokane, Wash.

North Bend, Oreg.

Naselle, Wash.

Portland, Oreg.

Greenville, S.C.

Albany, Oreg.

Richland, Wash.

Walla Walla, Wash.

Boise, Idaho..

Burns, Oreg.

McNary, Oreg.

Condon, Oreg

1 Levels 1-9 none; average level 10 and above is .088 or 2.7 percent for continental hires. Average leve 10 and above is 1.236 or 64.6 percent for noncontinental hires.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what the cost of the legislation is? Mr. OWEN. I have heard the testimony of the Chairman of the Civil Services Commission and of the representative of the Bureau of the Budget regarding the cost. It will vary, of course, according to what phases of the different bills are considered. I do not know what the cost is going to be. I have heard the testimony.

There is in the material that is before the committee some information from which cost for the various levels and grades could be computed. For example, in the analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics the Civil Service Commission attached a table to their analysis which shows the grade population for each grade, and that, multiplied by the step 4 salaries of that grade, would give the cost for that grade right on through. But that would depend on what amendments are made to the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions of the witness?

Mr. UDALL. I just wanted to commend Mr. Owen on an excellent statement. I want him to be sure I have read it word for word and line this morning and the committee will carefully consider the sugguestions you have made. I think you have made a very complete and excellent statement in behalf of this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pool.

Mr. POOL. Is your organization a part of the AFL-CIO?
Mr. OWEN. No.

Mr. POOL. The reason I asked that, a press report the other day said a group of the AFL-CIO had asked Federal and postal employees to cooperate with them in endorsing and supporting candidates in next year's elections, and I felt such publicity released at this time would probably hurt the pay raise bill; but since your organization is not connected with the AFL-CIO, I do not suppose I will ask you any further questions on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?
Thank you very much, Mr. Owen.

Mr. OWEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is pleased to hear next Mr. Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, who is accompanied by Mr. Bernard G. Segal, chairman of the Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compensation of the American Bar Association.

We are very glad to greet members of your fine association.

STATEMENTS OF WALTER E. CRAIG, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AND BERNARD G. SEGAL, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL SELECTION, TENURE, AND COMPENSATION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I had the opportunity of presenting Mr. Craig informally the other day and I have urged his fine association to appear before the committee in support of the legislation now before it.

I want to remind my colleagues who were not here the other day that Mr. Craig is a very prominent Phoenix attorney. He is a family friend and we in Arizona are very proud of his selection by the American Bar Association. I think the message he has for the committee is an important one and I want to assure my colleagues you can rely on what he says.

The gentleman appearing with him, Mr. Segal, is also an outstanding attorney.

The CHAIRMAN. From your State too?

Mr. UDALL. No. We cannot claim him, as much as we would like to, but he is an outstanding attorney and has been a great leader in the American Bar Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your statements in behalf of both of these gentlemen.

We will now be pleased to hear from Mr. Craig, president of the American Bar Association.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and Congressman Udall, thank you very much for your kind words.

I speak on behalf of the association in strongly advocating enactment of legislation which would provide adequate compensation for members of the Federal judiciary and the Congress.

We strongly recommend that this Congress enact legislation now which would provide a substantial increase in salaries for Federal judges and Members of the Congress.

Further delay would only magnify the inequity which exists in the present inadequate pay scale.

In 1953, Congress created a Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries. President Eisenhower appointed Bernard G. Segal as Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Segal serves presently as chairman of the American Bar Association's Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compensation.

In 1954, the house of delegates of this association adopted a resolution approving the salary increases recommended by the Commission. The association actively supported salary increase legislation and in 1955 the Congress increased judicial and congressional salaries, but not in the amounts recommended by the Commission and the association. The increases at that time adjusted a salary imbalance which had existed for many years.

The American Bar Association believed that the increases were inadequate and in 1961 reaffirmed its position urging Congress to adopt the recommendation of the Commission.

Again this year, after careful consideration of the matter by its committee on judicial selection, tenure, and compensation, the association, through action by its house of delegates, urged the Congress to increase substantially the annual compensation of the Federal judges and Members of Congress. Although the association did not recommend specific amounts in its 1963 action, the committee's report suggested that the increase be above the 1954 recommendations of the Commission.

The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems has recently made its report and recommendations for increases in salaries of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. The Panel has made an exhaustive study including numerous comparisons with salaries paid in private enterprise, local, and State governments and educational institutions.

The present salaries of Federal judges and Members of Congress are not in line with the economic and official needs of the judicial and legislative branches. In the interest of good government and the administration of justice we must see to it that our legislators and judges are reasonably compensated to fulfill their important responsibilities. This is a challenge which must be met by the Congress and which warrants the full support of the public.

I would like to supplement my statement to the extent that we in the American Bar Association for many years have interested ourselves in the welfare of the judiciary and the Congress with reference to compensation for services rendered. We think this is vital to the proper undertaking of their functions in the Congress and particularly in the judiciary.

Mr. Segal, on my right, was Chairman of the Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries in 1953. The recommendations of that Commission were approved by the house of delegates of the American Bar Association in 1954, and the salary increases subsequently

were not in accord with the recommendations of our association. Subsequently, in 1961, the association again recommended the immediate approval of the recommendations of the Commission and of the house of delegates. In our latest action this last summer we urged the Congress to increase substantially the compensation paid to judges of the United States and to Members of Congress of the United States. We believe that this is necessary to the proper carrying on of their functions. We do not believe persons called to this service should be expected to sacrifice their talents and impose problems upon their families as a result of lack of compensation.

I would like to introduce to you now Mr. Bernard G. Segal, who is chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compensation and who was former Chairman of the President's Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries created by the 83d Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be glad to hear from Mr. Segal.

Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as Mr. Craig, the distinguished president of the American Bar Association, has stated, I appear today as chairman of the association's standing committee on judicial selection, tenure, and compensation, to present to your committee the strong view of the lawyers of the country, as reflected in various resolutions of the American Bar Association which have been adopted from 1947 until this past February in New Orleans, and resolutions of State and local bar associations and other professional groups, that substantial increases in judicial and congressional salaries are urgently needed and are long overdue.

During the past decade and longer, I have had contact with this question of salaries of Federal judges and Members of the Congress in a number of capacities. However, I shall concentrate on only one today, as I feel that as part of this record, there should be a very brief summary of the action of the last governmental Commission created by Congress which considered the question.

As Mr. Craig has indicated, in 1953 it was my honor to be appointed by President Eisenhower to serve as Chairman of the Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries, which was created by Public Law 220 of the 83d Congress.

The Commission was composed of 18 voting members, representing the principal segments of the American economy, including in equal numbers, representatives of agriculture, of labor, and of business and the professions. Six members of the Commission, including the Chairman, were appointed by the President, six by the Chief Justice, and three each by the Vice President and by the Speaker of the House. The Commission had nine advisory members, three of whom were Members of the U.S. Senate, three of the House of Representatives, and three of the Federal judiciary.

I shall not, of course, burden your committee with a recital in any detail of the work of the Commission or of its recommendations, although, if time allowed, I am sure that every word of its comprehensive report would still be applicable and of interest today, except that the situation now is even more acute that it was then.

Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pool.