Mr. SEGAL. I made no recommendations. I did say that in 1954, our Commission recommended salaries of $40,000 for the Chief Justice, $39,500 for the members of the Supreme Court, and $27,500 for the members of the district court and for Members of Congress.

Mr. OLSEN. Subsequent to that in 1955 there was a pay increase bill passed by Congress?

Mr. SEGAL. Yes, I testified before the Senate committee respecting those increases.

In the House, Congressman Celler, who then as now, was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill providing acrossthe-board increases of $10,000. At first, it appeared that that would be the bill which would be passed.

Then quite unexpectedly, Congressman Walter put in a bill for increases of $7,500 for Members of the Congress and for judges of the district courts; $8,000 for members of the courts of appeals; and $9,500 for the Justices of the Supreme Court. That was the bill which was finally enacted with a few changes in other provisions made by the conference committee.

Mr. OLSEN. Do you have a personal opinion at this time?

Mr. SEGAL. Yes. I have given a lot of thought to this question. I have studied the recent report of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems, the so-called Randall report. Not having had notice until the day before yesterday that I was to appear here today, I tried in the short time available, to review certain factors occurring since our Commission's report. These factors included the increased cost of living, increases in salaries at the University of Pennsylvania, with which I am familiar as a trustee, figures of other educational institutions which I had in my files, and increases in compensation at hospitals and charitable institutions with which I am connected, and in business enterprises which our firm represents, and finally, increases to employees in the classified services. I have concluded, and this is a personal opinion, that at the minimum, the salaries for Supreme Court Justices should range from $45,000 to $50,000, with the strongest justification for the higher figure. I am sure I could justify the $50,000 figure without any trouble.

For court of appeals judges, I come up with a minimum range of $35,500 to $40,500, with a clear preference for the higher figure.

For Members of the Congress and judges of the district courts, our Commission recommended $27,500 almost 10 years ago. In arriving at that figure we took into consideration what we thought public opinion would support; we had to bear in mind that legislators must fix their own salaries.

Now if we merely add to our Commission's $27,500 recommendation, made after the most exhaustive public hearings and studies in 1953, the 51-percent increase in salaries which, on the average, employees in the classified services of the Federal Government have received since then, we would come up with a figure of $41,525. Certainly, then, salaries of $35,000 to $37,500 for Members of the Congress and U.S. district judges could be amply justified. An absolute minimum-and then only if Supreme Court Justices were to receive the $45,000 rather than the $50,000 salary-would be $32,500, but this would be low by any valid standard I know.

I wish to emphasize, Congressman Olsen, that although based on studies of our Commission and the other factors I have mentioned, the figures I have given represent my personal conclusions only.

Mr. OLSEN. If you were talking comparability as we are talking in other grades of the Federal service, comparability with private enterprise, your figures would have to be a good deal higher.

Mr. SEGAL. Yes. I am taking into consideration the regrettable fact that Members of the Congress have to fix their own salaries. This is the reason I never could understand why it was that when Congress had before it the recommendation of a Commission appointed by four different authorities-the President, the Chief Justice, the Vice President, and the Speaker-composed of representatives from the important segments of our population, and these recommendations had such widespread support in the country, the Congress nevertheless adopted salary scales approximately $5,000 less than those proposed.

Actually, as I have pointed out, our Commission's recommendations were very conservative when made, in order to assure virtually unanimous public support and also to allow for the fact I have stressed, that Congressmen must pass on their own salaries.

Mr. OLSEN. I would understand that you are familiar with the Randall report figures?

Mr. SEGAL. Yes. I believe if you take solely comparability, the Randall figures can be supported in all respects. I am not as sure of the Cabinet, simply because I have not studied that subject recently.

Before I reach a conclusion on Cabinet salaries, I would want to give the subject more study, because I have not thought much about it since 1953 and 1954. I have no doubt, however, that Cabinet salaries are far too low.

Mr. OLSEN. What I want to give most serious consideration to is the executive pay. The executive pay controls the ceiling on classified pay. The bulk of lawyers are in the classified service under the Executive Offices. It is the key to lawyer pay in the Governent.

I wondered if you had anything to say about those figures. Do you think you could support them?

Mr. SEGAL. Yes. I believe they are supportable, but I would want a little time if I had to recommend a precise figure and support it.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you..

The CHAIRMAN. Other questions?

Mr. UDALL. I want to commend Mr. Segal and Mr. Craig for eloquent and effective testimony. I think this is some of the best and most effective testimony we have had on this particular subject.

I wanted to make one observation. When you are talking about the Cabinet there is no question about the inadequacy of the top executives' pay, including Cabinet pay, and any Secretary of Statethey are concerned with survival of the people, and the Secretary of Defense presides over an establishment spending $55 billion a year.

If any of us were serving on the executive board of a corporation and paid him $25,000 we would be thrown out by the stockholders without further ado. It is preposterous that we ask men to assume this heavy responsibility at those levels of pay.

Developing the point Mr. Olsen made, some people look upon the proposed raises for Congressmen and members of the Cabinet and

members of the top executive agencies as some sort of windfall that you are giving a man, a salary of $35,000 or $40,000.

They feel this is a big plum, a windfall, and a man can come into it by getting one of these appointments.

Ideally we would want our Federal judges to be the very best lawyers, men of judgment, men of vision, men of tact, wisdom, and men skilled in law, so I want to propose this question:

Assuming that you have in New York, Philadelphia, Arizona, or any other State, the outstanding lawyers in the community, men who have succeeded in private practice and men who have shown they have an awareness of all problems and men who have confidence of people in that community, would a lawyer of this experience--would it be unusual for a man of that experience and capacity to be making as much as $35,000 a year in the practice of law?

Mr. SEGAL. I would say it would be extremely unusual for him to be making that little. As a matter of fact, it would be almost unheard of in the metropolitan cities and it would also be unusual in many of the smaller communities throughout the country.

I give you two examples.

Judge Rifkind, a most distinguished former judge of U.S. district court at New York, resigned from that court because family requirements would not enable him to remain in the court as his children grew up and went to college. He left the bench.

He is now head of a great New York law firm. His compensation is undoubtedly many times that he received as a judge.

For six terms I was chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. We screened for both the current and the preceding administrations people under consideration for appointment as Federal judges.

When the onmibus judgeship bill was passed, the then Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Byron White, suggested that we endeavor to recruit topnotch lawyers for judicial posts and to urge State and local bars to do so also.

We found, again and again, that lawyers gave economic reasons for being unable to accept appointment. For example, some said, "We could make the sacrifice and go on to the Federal bench but we couldn't keep up our insurance program."

Even the most sucessful lawyers-40, 45, 50 years of age-though they live well and make excellent incomes, current income taxes being what they are, have little capital. If such a lawyer died after he went on the bench and had given up most of his insurance, his family would be in a bad way financially since there is no adequate provision under present laws for dependents of judges today.

The case comes to mind of a New York City lawyer who was induced to go on the district bench. In my opinion, he was making more than $200,000 a year. The Government now has his services at $22,500.

On the other hand, as you know, for six terms I was chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. We screened for the current administration and the previous administration people under consideration for judicial post. When the omnibus judgeship bill was passed, Mr. Byron White suggested we endeavor to recruit topnotch lawyers for judicial posts. We found again and again that lawyers gave reasons that were

economic in nature. For example, some said: "We could make the sacrifice and go on to the Federal bench but we couldn't keep up our insurance program."

Then the average lawyer of 40 or 45 with current income tax, though he lives well and makes excellent income, has no capital. If he died the day after he went on the bench and gave up his insurance his family would be penurious, and there is no adequate compensation for dependents of judges or Members of Congress today.

We induced one man to go on the bench from New York. He was making $210,000 a year. The Government now has his services at $22,500. I think that is unconscionable.

Mr. UDALL. From your observation, in the appointment of Federal district judges in the past 10 years, would you agree there perhaps never has been employment in the last 10 years of a Federal district judge of a man earning less than $22,500 at the time he was appointed if he were in private practice?

Mr. SEGAL. Without reviewing each case, I am certain that the overwhelming number were earning substantially more, and I think I could conscientiously say, I do not recall any case at the moment where a man had been earning less than his judicial compensation. Mr. UDALL. Rather than being a windfall, in nearly every instance it is a sacrifice?

Mr. SEGAL. A great sacrifice and it is not only what he is earning at the time. Take a man of 40. He takes a lifetime position. He may be earning $25,000. If he had not gone on the bench, by the time he reached 50, he might be earning $100,000 or more.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you.

Mr. SEGAL. May I offer these documents to which I referred? While here I would like to offer a resolution adopted earlier this month by the nonlawyer members of the Annual Judicial Conference for the Third Judicial Circuit of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be received as exhibits.

Mr. OLSEN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be made part of the printed record and the other documents part of the file. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be done.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE NONJUDICIAL MEMBERS OF THE ANNUAL JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE UNITED States, on SeptEMBER 5, 1963, at ATLANTIC CITY, N.J.

Whereas the report of the Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries (created by the 83d Cong.), made to the President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, on January 15, 1954, recommended, inter alia, increases in the salaries of all justices and judges in the U.S. courts; and

Whereas the American Bar Association and important organizations in the fields of agriculture, business, labor, and the various professions urged the adoption of the Commission's recommendations; and

Whereas on March 2, 1955, Congress instead enacted legislation embodying judicial and congressional salary increases in amounts $5,000 less than those recommended by the Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries in each classification except judges of the U.S. courts of appeals in which cases the increases were $4,500 less than those recommended; and

Whereas since the enactment of these salary increases for justices and judges, six pay increases have been granted to Federal employees in the classified services, as follows: In 1955, a 7.5-percent increase; in 1956, an 8.1-percent increase; in 1958, a 10-percent increase; in 1960, a 7.7-percent increase; in 1962, a 5.5-percent

increase; and in 1963, a 4.1-percent increase, effective January 1, 1964; aggregating more than 51 percent; and

Whereas no increases have been granted to justices or judges in the U.S. courts since 1955; and

Whereas the salaries of such justices and judges are inordinately low and have fallen far below corresponding salaries in professional and other comparable fields of endeavor, being even lower than those recommended almost 10 years ago by the Government Commission on Judicial and Congressional Salaries, consisting of leaders of agriculture, labor, and business and the professions: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the nonjudicial members of the Judicial Conference for the Third Judicial Circuit of the United States, strongly urge that the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States assume the leadership in recommending to the Congress of the United States that the salaries of the Federal judges be substantially increased at this time, and that the Congress promptly enact legislation embodying such higher salaries.

Resolved, further, That copies of this resolution be sent to the President and the Attorney General of the United States; to the respective chairmen of the appropriate committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives of the United States; and to the president, the president-elect, the chairman of the house of delegates, and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Judicial Selection, Tenure, and Compensation of the American Bar Association.

I, Ida O. Creskoff, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted by the nonjudicial members of the Annual Judicial Conference, Third Judicial Circuit of the United States, on September 5, 1963, at Atlantic City, N.J.

[SEAL]

IDA O. CRESKOFF, Secretary of the Conference.

Mr. BROYHILL. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague from Arizona in commending Mr. Segal for a most effective statement. I intend to take extracts from this testimony to use in trying to convince some of our colleagues on the wisdom of this approach.

I said at the outset I am strongly for facing up to this problem of adjusting salaries of the executives and Members of Congress. We may as well recognize this is a political problem with which we are confronted. A large number of the Members of Congress feel this might be political suicide to raise their own pay. I think the whole salary question also has had a measure of politics involved in it. I am not certain that is all bad.

I am a member of this committee because I represent a large number of Federal employees. It is good politics to see they receive good representation and get proper pay and working conditions.

I think Congress has been lax over a period of years in recognizing the managerial responsibilities as well and adjusting salaries of the higher grade employees as well as the executive. We are gradually facing up to that now.

There is strong indication there is support here in the Congress for raising the higher grades of Federal employees a higher percentage, and also in the executive branch. I am not so certain we have a majority that will be willing at the moment to face up to raising their own salaries.

If they don't do it there will be a reluctance to get proper adjustment in the judiciary and other higher grades of employees.

I am wondering if the Bar Association has given thought to the advisability of taking that particular prerogative away from Congress. I ask that question with reluctance because I think it is wrong for Congress to delegate its responsibilities. We have done that too much in the past, I think. In the Reorganization Act the President