Page images

Mr. Pool. Can you give us a geographical breakdown?
Mr. SEGAL. Of the members of the Commission?
Mr. Pool. Yes.

Mr. SEGAL. Yes, I can. Before I am through I will offer the Commission's report and record containing this information. Voting members of the Commission came from Bishopville, S.C.; Rock Springs, Wyo.; Louisville, Ky; Washington, D.C.; Ackworth, Iowa; San Jose, Calif., San Francisco, Calif.; Lima, Ohio; Luverne, Minn.; Chicago, Ill.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Waltham, Mass.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Cleveland, Ohio; and Cincinnati, Ohio. Advisory members came from Concordia, Kans.; Washington, D.C.; Reno, Nev.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Tenafly, N.J.; Wilmington, Del.; Easton, Pa.; and Los Angeles, Calif. I am sorry, I do not find one from Arizona, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Or Texas?

Mr. SEGAL. Or Texas. I should say, however, that one of the attorneys who was very helpful in the presentation of evidence to the Commission did come from Texas.

Since I think an appropriate starting point for any current consideration of judicial and congressional salaries is the recommendations of the Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries, I shall point out very briefly the nature of the Commission's investigation.

As Chairman, I appointed seven task forces which conducted extensive research into their respective fields of inquiry. We solicited the views of all proponents and opponents of salary increases. We sent letters to the editors and publishers of more than 10,000 daily and weekly newspapers and publications in the fields of agriculture, business, labor, professions, fraternal, service, women's, and civic improvement organizations, explaining the scope of the Commission's inquiries, requesting the views of the editors and their readers, and urging any interested persons to appear before the Commission at the hearings to be conducted in the Senate caucus room or to submit their views in writing.

I think it is significant that, as a result, more than 150 editorials and feature articles by leading columnists appeared in the newspapers of the country before the publication of our report, and, thereafter, there were hundreds of additional editorials and articles in newspapers and leading magazines. For example, the Saturday Evening Post, then in its heyday, had an editorial, almost a full page in length, which concluded as follows:

In its elaborate, searching report, the Segal Commission recommended a scale of increases necessary to bring the salaries of judges and Congressmen into line. * * *

*** The public is aware of the need; what the lawyers call “the last clear chance" is here. The 84th Congress, in its 2 years' existence, will spend more money for more purposes than any other body of men on earth. Commonsense and public interest alike dictate that they should devote a tiny fraction of their appropriations to making the major jobs of statecraft in a free nation possible for the men best fitted to hold them.

These articles and editorials represented a mighty surge of public sentiment from all sections of the country favoring judicial and congressional increases, as a result of the publicity given to the Commission's hearings and findings, and the tremendous work of the American Bar Association.


Mr. Pool. Do you recall if you had any in Texas papers ?
Mr. SEGAL. Yes, I do.
This is 10 years ago, but is there a Houston Chronicle?
Mr. Pool. Yes.

Mr. SEGAL. Well I am not sure whether that is the one, but the editor of a Houston paper called me and asked if I would send to him data which could be used as the basis for an editorial, and an excellent editorial in favor of the increases subsequently appeared.

Mr. Pool. What year was that?
Mr. SEGAL. 1953 or 1954.

Mr. UDALL. The Dallas Daily News did not participate in the campaign?

Mr. SEGAL. I do not recall.
Mr. OLSEN. Can you quote figures in dollars and cents?
Mr. SEGAL. On the recommendations?
Mr. OLSEN. Yes.
Mr. SEGAL. Yes. I will get to that.

I might say first, that we conducted public hearings in which we took over 800 pages of oral testimony, and exhibits and written communications consumed several hundred additional pages. We heard more than 60 witnesses, including the heads of leading labor, agriculture, business, professional, financial, educational, and other groups, and citizens and experts from practically every section of the country who came to those bearings. We heard from several past Attorneys General of the United States and the then incumbent Attorney General, as well as other Cabinet members, Members of the Congress, and Federal judges. Actually, the only opposition to increases in salaries of Members of Congress were voiced by three Members of the House of Representatives, one of whom also opposed judicial salary increases. All three were entirely frank in admitting, in response to questions by the Chairman, that they had large sources of income outside of their congressional salaries.

I have here, and I thought I might offer for the committee's use, a copy of Senate Document No. 104 of the 83d Congress, 2d session, which contains a transcript of the Commission's hearings. Many of the editorials which appeared prior to the hearings are included, as are the many written statements and communications offered at the hearings.

Then I have a copy of the report of the Commission as presented to the President, the Chief Justice, the Vice President, and the Speaker pursuant to the requirements of the legislation.

Next, I have House Document No. 300 of the 83d Congress, 2d session, which contains my letter of transmittal to the Speaker and a reprint by the House of this complete report of the Commission.

Finally, I have the reports of the seven task forces, which was printed as Senate Document No. 97 of the 83d Congress, 2d session.

The Commission concluded unanimously that the scale of judicial and congressional salaries had not kept pace with the growth of the duties and responsibilities of the offices; that the differences between salaries paid to Federal judges and Member of the Congress and those paid in private enterprise were grossly disproportionate; that the salaries of members of the judiciary and of the Congress had lagged far behind salary adjustments granted most officials and employees of

the Federal Government and had fallen substantially below historic differentials; that the judicial and congressional salaries were and for a long time had been grossly inadequate; that low salary rates tend to confine these high positions to persons of independent wealth or those having outside earnings; that while there is no exact formula by which salaries of Federal judges and Members of the Congress can be determined, any of the accepted job evaluation criteria and standards historically applied, established that the salaries were completely out of line; and finally, that at any time in our history, the net cost to the Government of increasing salaries of Members of the Congress and of the Federal judiciary to reasonable levels are comparatively inconsequential insofar as the Federal budget is concerned.

We also made recommendations as to travel allowances, which I believe should have been adopted. In my opinion, the rejection of our recommendations on this subject was very much against the public interest. We recommended that each Member of the Congress should be permitted, on voucher, to take six trips home a year paid for by the Government, it having been our feeling that to enable him to travel home where he could meet his constituents once every 2 months was in the public interest.

That recommendation was adopted by the House of Representatives, but it was rejected by a conference committee, not because of lack of merit of the proposal but because of controversies on other questions.

The specific recommendations which the Commission made in January 1954, as to salaries were: $40,000 for the Chief Justice of the United States and $39,500 for the Associate Justices; $30,500 for judges of the U.S. courts of appeals and judges of the other courts receiving equivalent salaries; $27,500 for judges of the U.S. district courts and judges of other Federal courts receiving equivalent salaries; and $27,500 for Members of the Congress.

The report of the Commission was widely supported by the mass media and by the leading representatives of labor, agriculture, business, the professions, and civic, church, women's, and other groups throughout the country.

Nevertheless, the Congress adopted salary scales substantially below those unanimously recommended by the Commission, and these salary scales still prevail today, despite increases in the cost of living and despite the step-ups in the compensation of executives in business, the professions, labor unions, farm groups, and every other segment of our economy. Further, the historic differentials between the salaries of Members of the Congress and the judiciary on the one hand, and other Government officials and employees on the other, have been further and unsoundly altered.

Let me give you just one example. Since the last increase to the Members of the Congress and the judiciary, there have been six salary increases for employees in the Federal classified service. In 1955, there was a 7.5-percent increase; in 1956, 8.1 percent; in 1958, 10 percent; in 1960, 7.7 percent; in 1962, 5.5 percent; and this year, 4.1 percent to become effective January 1, 1964. These increases were cumulative, one on the other, and in the aggregate, they amounted to approximately 51 percent.

During this same period, not only have the Members of the Congress and the judiciary not yet received even the salaries that the Commission, drawn from every segment of our economy, recommended almost 10 years ago, but they have not received any increase whatever during this entire period.

Traditionally, salaries of the Federal judges have set standards for State court judges, but this is no longer so.

Federal judges sitting on trial and appellate courts in Los Angeles or San Francisco are receiving lower salaries than those of State court judges in the selfsame cities. So also in Illinois and Maryland and Michigan and New York and Pennsylvania and Georgia.

In my own State, for example, our chief justice receives $33,000 a year. Five blocks down the street, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, presiding at hearings on appeals from all Federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, receives $25,500, $7,500 a year less.

And judges of the superior court, an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania, receive $5,000 a year more than the chief judge and the other judges of the U.S. court of appeals.

Judges of the Philadelphia courts of common pleas, our State trial courts, receive higher salaries than our U.S. district court judges.

The differences elsewhere are even more striking.

Little wonder, then, that every responsible group which has addressed itself to this problem feels that the time has come for a radical overhaul in the whole matter of judicial and congressional salaries. Tbus, in its comprehensive report to the President 3 months ago, the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems recommended increases substantially above those proposed by our Commission almost 10 years ago. And the National Civil Service League, after its study, reported that a survey of about 675 eminent leaders in a great variety of endeavors indicated overwhelming support for salary scales for Members of Congress also materially above those in the Commission report.

The salary scales recommended by our Commission were not liberal when they were made in 1953 and 1954; and tbe salary scales which were enacted in 1955 are unconscionable today. From every viewpoint, I submit to this committee, the present salary scales represent poor economy and worse Government.

I do not need to emphasize to this committee how vastly increased in time consumed, energies required, responsibility entailed, or strain and stress imposed, the duties of a Member of the Congress are today, compared with those prevailing a quarter of a century ago. As the answers to questionnaires that I sent in behalf of the Commission, to each Member of the Senate and House just 10 years ago reveal, it is surprising how much more time the official duties of the Congress take today than even just a decade ago.

And, of course, during these same periods, the duties of a Federal judge have increased immensely in complexity and arduousness.

If we are to be successful in our efforts to maintain peace with honor abroad, and prosperity with justice at home, we simply must assure that the Nation's topflight leadership shall continue to be available in the Halls of Congress and on the Federal bench, and that inadequate compensation shall never constitute a bar to any American citizen who is qualified to fill those high posts.

[ocr errors]

Businessmen would say that this is the simplest kind of good economics. Political scientists would say this is the simplest kind of good government. There is also the overriding factor of simple justice. It is high time that these inequities of long standing be eliminated and that salaries be fixed at levels which are consistent with the dignity and the stature which the informed citizens of our country wish to have attached to the offices of U.S. Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, and justice or judge in the U.S. courts,

I want to point out one salient factor which I hope the committee will consider in making its recommendations. The practice followed in private industry and insisted upon by leaders of organized labor, and one necessarily pursued by our own Government respecting employees in the classified service, is to have frequent, periodic reviews of salaries and wages, in order to provide for continual adjustments to meet increased living costs and to reflect added responsibilities and improved standards.

Our Commission recommended in our report that there be an agency set up for such periodic review. This has not been done, which is the reason that salary scales are at their present deplorable levels.

Since 1789, and throughout our national history, adjustments in the compensation of Federal judges and Members of the Congress have been made, on the average, only once in every 20 years. This means that when such highly infrequent salary adjustments are finally adopted for these two branches of our Government, they must inevitably be large as compared with the numerous periodic, piecemeal increases given to other employees of the Government and to people in private enterprise.

Fortunately, the number of persons involved in judicial and congressional salary increases is so small that the resulting impact on the national budget is never very great.

One of the striking facts which our Commission considered, was that at the time of our deliberations, the total expenditures for the Congress of the United States were less than one-twelfth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, and those for the Federal judiciary less than one twenty-seventh of 1 percent. If the individual increases our Commission recommended, ranging from $12,500 to $15,000 a year, had been adopted in their entirety, they would have involved å net cost to the U.S. Government of only $4,500,000 for Members of the Congress and less than $3 million for justices and judges. I submit that however concerned we may be--and I am sure most of us arewith the urgency of decreasing the expenditures of the Federal Government, the cost of any increases in judicial and congressional salaries which would be recommended by any responsible source would be minimal when compared with the advancement of the public interest which would be served.

In closing, I urge, in behalf of the American Bar Association, that in the public interest and in simple justice to the officials who occupy these lofty and critical positions, your committee recommend substantial increases in the salaries of the Members of the Congress and of the Federal judiciary.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. OLSEN. I am sorry I had to be absent for a few moments. Did you mention any dollars-and-cents figures?

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »