The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions of the witness?

Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for a splendid statement. I want to assure you that I, and I know my colleagues, will read your entire statement. We always appreciate the statement from your organization because it is so well supported by figures and facts. Thank you very much.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. John J. Murphy, president, National Customs Service Association.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MURPHY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CUSTOMS SERVICE ASSOCIATION

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John J. Murphy. I am president of the National Customs Service Association, an organization comprised of employees of the customs service at all levels.

We are grateful for the opportunity to testify in support of this legislation, which is intended to bring about salary comparability for Federal employees with private enterprise rates for similar levels of work. Our organization has strongly endorsed the principle of comparability, and we urge that steps be taken to make the carrying out of the principle more realistic. Specifically, we suggest that some method of reducing the time lag in creating the new pay level be worked out. Our view is that it is only fair that the salary schedule be revised in line with the results of the survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and which were published in March of this year. The second step of last year's pay raise is to take effect January 1964, but was determined prior to the first of the BLS findings. These figures were based on a study of salaries in industry made in late 1961 and early 1962; therefore, the comparability proposed in the January 1964 salaries is already over 2 years old. Congress now has the opportunity to revise the salary schedule with the benefit of the BLS survey. In passing Public Law 87-793 last year, we believe that Congress made a commitment to Federal employees and we feel sure that this commitment to achieve comparability will be honored. We further believe that with the benefit of the latest survey figures the timelag can be substantially reduced.

In weighing the rates of pay for Federal employees, we urge that attention be given to the pay of all employees. We recommend that consideration be given to equitable treatment for all levels so that the pay structure may be kept in proper relationship.

In the customs service we have employees in every grade of the GS schedule. Since ours is a truly career service, we prefer to recruit employees at the low levels and to train them for promotion. We have been experiencing difficulty in retaining employees who show a potential for advancement due to the low salary levels of the beginning and intermediate grades.

Our association wishes to go on record as favoring a revision of executive positions' salaries in order that they may be made realistic in the light of changing times and greatly increased responsibilities. We are of the opinion that it would be advantageous to the Government in retaining capable people if the executive salaries were revised.

We believe that equity would be accomplished by revising the current salary schedules in line with the results of Bureau of Labor Statistics published in March of this year. We feel that consideration should be given to fair salary adjustments all through the general schedule.

Many of our low- and middle-salary employees are deserving of higher pay based on the type of work they are doing. We wish to go on record also as supporting a revision of executive position salaries. We feel this is a critical area where there have been many disadvantages to the Government in losing capable people because of inadequate pay.

Congress has promised true comparability between salaries of Federal workers and their counterparts in private enterprise.

We are certain that this commitment will be kept. We urge the committee to give favorable consideration to these proposals which affect Federal employees so vitally. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Murphy, has your association arrived at which of these bills you prefer?

Mr. MURPHY. We lean toward H.R. 7552, but we would prefer not to endorse any particular one. We feel a lot of information has been given the committee here. We feel that we would rest on the good judgment of the committee, knowing their interest in the welfare of Federal employees.

Mr. WATSON. Your basic position is just endorsing the principle of comparability and trying to reduce the timelag as much as possible?

Mr. MURPHY. Those are our two main points; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Conrad D. Philos, national first vice president and president-elect, Federal Bar Association. He is accompanied by Mr. M. Reynolds Sands, chairman of the Pay and Classification Committee, Council on Government Lawyers.

STATEMENT OF CONRAD D. PHILOS, NATIONAL FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AND PRESIDENT-ELECT, FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY M. REYNOLDS SANDS, CHAIRMAN OF THE PAY AND CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE, COUNCIL ON GOVERNMENT LAWYERS

Mr. PHILOS. On behalf of the Federal Bar Association I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman and to this committee for the opportunity to appear before this committee

I am appearing here as the president-elect of our organization, and I believe it is germane to describe briefly the composition of our organization in order to place my remarks in the proper perspective. Although it has its headquarters in Washington, D.C., it has 50 chapters throughout the United States. Its membership exceeds 10,000 lawyers. Approximately two-third of them are in Government service, in the executive branch, the regulatory agencies, the courts, and in a Capitol Hill chapter of which we are very proud. The remainder

are in private practice or hold posts in private industry. We feel, therefore, that we have within our membership base the material which cannot only support a strong claim for comparable pay, but can do so on a true, nationwide basis.

We do not wish to be understood, however, as making a presentation which has no more substance than that we would like to have something "just because someone else has it." We would prefer instead to put it on the basis of comparable pay for comparable performance. We can, of course, speak with authority only about the task of our own profession, but we say with conviction that the increasingly more complex problems which beset our Nation require that the Government have a law office second to none. The true value of the attorney is not displayed alone in adversary proceedings, for he plays an even more important role in the day-by-day administrative matter-which may be unheralded-but which affects the fairness, the efficacy, and the reasonableness of decisions which affect millions of our citizens. Perhaps we could call this "every day due process."

It is in the field of adversary proceedings, however, that we are provided an excellent basis for a study of "comparable pay." By the very nature of the role that the Government lawyer must play in these cases, he frequently pits his professional skills against his counterpart from private practice, in the courts, in the resolution of administrative claims, and in disputes arising under contracts and other agreements. Here then we find the ultimate test of comparability. We believe that the Government legal staffs have not been found wanting even though they were opposed by lawyers who (for example in antitrust or defense contract matters) earn far more.

Simple equity requires an adjustment. This adjustment should not be made with a view of trying to attract and retain personnel who are interested only in salary. These individuals would not have the sense of duty and the spirit of dedication which is needed for a public servant. The adjustment should be made, however, at a level which would permit properly motivated officials to serve without sacrifice.

We believe that these adjustments cannot be made without relieving the compression which results from the pay ceilings on the courts, the Congress and the executive officials. Accordingly, we endorse the approximate levels proposed by the Udall-Broyhill amendments.

As an association we are mindful of the obligations to the Nation which are implicit in pay raises. It is our pledge and our purpose to demonstrate by many measures-including programs for a fuller utilization of Government lawyers-that the increases would be a sound investment by the Congress.

I would like again to thank you for this opportunity to appear. Mr. Reynolds Sands, the chairman of our Federal Bar Committee, will present a more detailed statement with the permission of your chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will be glad to hear from Mr. Sands.

Mr. SANDS. My name is M. Reynolds Sands. I am a lawyer presently employed by the Federal Government and have been requested by the executive committee of the Federal Bar Association to make a statement on its behalf in support of legislation to increase the pay of Federal employees.

The Federal Bar Association is an association of members of the Federal judiciary and of other lawyers who are or have been in the employ of the U.S. Government in legal capacities. The association has chapters throughout the United States and in several European cities, with a current membership in excess of 10,000.

While my remarks are largely limited to lawyers, that does not mean that the association doesn't recognize the urgent need of other categories of Federal employees for higher pay. I just know more about the status of Government lawyers than about the other categories. Also, it is understood that others better versed in the problems of other categories of personnel have, or will in the near future, provide your committee with this other information.

It would not appear inappropriate to consider briefly whether lawyers contribute importantly to the functions of the Federal Government before discussing the adequacy of their pay.

It seems to me that a necessary preliminary to evaluating the importance of the work performed by the Government lawyer is to briefly touch upon the role of the legal profession in our society, as Government lawyers are but a part of the legal profession.

It has been said that justice is the supreme creation of mankind, to date. This is not merely a trite cliche, but is a hard-headed, timeproven fact. Just look around the world. Notice that the citizens of those nations and societies with the best systems of justice enjoy the greatest freedom and true, substantial, and individual liberty. These nations are the most advanced generally scientifically. They are also the happiest and generally the most prosperous and comfortable. Take our own America, for example, and contrast the lot of our citizens with that of the Communist world.

The Communist system of "justice" is such that solid walls adorned with necklaces of barbed wire, studded with frequent machinegun nests and other deterrents placed closely together, have been erected, not to keep others out, but to keep their own citizens in. The Communist system of "justice" is of such a nature that, as we all know, literally millions of their citizens have faced, and in many cases mercifully succumbed to, death to escape it. They, at least, would rather be dead than Red. A midnight knock at the door, and the seizure of persons without a warrant or other semblance of due process of law, not only is universally feared by the citizenry of Communist societies, but frequently occurs. It is truly a prison, slave-type society, held together strictly by force and chicanery, and based on the antithesis of justice as we know it. It is a system of justice much better suited for keeping animals securely caged in a zoo rather than to govern a society of human beings.

Can anyone doubt that the achievements the Communist societies have accomplished in certain limited and highly technical fields, largely designed for destruction rather than construction, must be as dust and ashes in the mouths of their enslaved people.

Man did not make much progress until he banded together with his fellows and established a system of justice, crude as it may have been in the beginning. The progress of man can be measured by the progress that he has made in his system of justice. While there are some variations in the amount and kind of raw materials available to the various societies of the world, and possibly in the innate abilities and

are in private practice or hold posts in private industry. We feel, therefore, that we have within our membership base the material which cannot only support a strong claim for comparable pay, but can do so on a true, nationwide basis.

We do not wish to be understood, however, as making a presentation which has no more substance than that we would like to have something "just because someone else has it." We would prefer instead to put it on the basis of comparable pay for comparable performance. We can, of course, speak with authority only about the task of our own profession, but we say with conviction that the increasingly more complex problems which beset our Nation require that the Government have a law office second to none. The true value of the attorney is not displayed alone in adversary proceedings, for he plays an even more important role in the day-by-day administrative matter-which may be unheralded-but which affects the fairness, the efficacy, and the reasonableness of decisions which affect millions of our citizens. Perhaps we could call this "every day due process.

It is in the field of adversary proceedings, however, that we are provided an excellent basis for a study of "comparable pay." By the very nature of the role that the Government lawyer must play in these cases, he frequently pits his professional skills against his counterpart from private practice, in the courts, in the resolution of administrative claims, and in disputes arising under contracts and other agreements. Here then we find the ultimate test of comparability. We believe that the Government legal staffs have not been found wanting even though they were opposed by lawyers who (for example in antitrust or defense contract matters) earn far more.

Simple equity requires an adjustment. This adjustment should not be made with a view of trying to attract and retain personnel who are interested only in salary. These individuals would not have the sense of duty and the spirit of dedication which is needed for a public servant. The adjustment should be made, however, at a level which would permit properly motivated officials to serve without sacrifice.

We believe that these adjustments cannot be made without relieving the compression which results from the pay ceilings on the courts, the Congress and the executive officials. Accordingly, we endorse the approximate levels proposed by the Udall-Broyhill amendments.

As an association we are mindful of the obligations to the Nation which are implicit in pay raises. It is our pledge and our purpose to demonstrate by many measures-including programs for a fuller utilization of Government lawyers-that the increases would be a sound investment by the Congress.

I would like again to thank you for this opportunity to appear. Mr. Reynolds Sands, the chairman of our Federal Bar Committee, will present a more detailed statement with the permission of your chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will be glad to hear from Mr. Sands.

Mr. SANDS. My name is M. Reynolds Sands. I am a lawyer presently employed by the Federal Government and have been requested by the executive committee of the Federal Bar Association to make a statement on its behalf in support of legislation to increase the pay of Federal employees.