well as the Civil Service League, which is in nowise motivated by the employee organizations. So far as I know the league gets very little, if any, support from employee organizations, but they are composed of business and civic leaders of the Nation.

I feel that it would be repetitive for me to put in the record here statements of a statistical nature showing comparative wages paid by the Government and outside the Government, because the committee has had sufficient information on that.

But I have included in my statement an excerpt from a booklet which is entitled, "A Businessman Looks at Government Pay," by Clarence B. Randall. I would like to point out something about Mr. Randall. Reading from my own statement, Mr. Randall served as special assistant to President Eisenhower; also performed many public services for President Truman and President Kennedy, including a recent panel to review Federal salary policy. In 1952 he was named man of the year by the National Association of Manufacturers. In 1960 he was cited by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States with its National Recognition Award.

My only reason for introducing this is the fact that if anybody should be impartial in this problem and not have a selfish interest, certainly Mr. Randall ought to fit that situation.

Incidentally, I have sufficient copies here for the committee if you would like to have them.

We have been listening, reading, and seeing on the television and reading in the magazines quite a bit of comment about the present economic situation of this country. It seems a great many people are in agreement that we are in a sluggish economy at the present time, so much so in fact, it has been suggested that a way to help the economy would be to reduce the taxes. I do no want to get into that argument. I am just pointing out we are all reading that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not before our committee-the income taxes. Mr. LANGAN. I do want to point out there seems to be a great deal of concern for our economy and the need for some stimulant, something to assist. I do not know of any better way than to bring the salaries of Federal employees up to a proper level. Immediately it would mean money would be spent to pay bills, for much-needed articles, to purchase goods, to bring standards up where they ought to be, which in turn would permit business expansion.

There is so much of interest in this that the U.S. News & World Report for the past three issues has had articles in it on the same subject. They have had interviews with Paul McCracken, professor at the University of Michigan, on business conditions, and Paul Sandelson of MIT. Each of them have agreed there is a slump and some money is needed in order to promote business and to promote the circulation of money in our economy.

Day before yesterday I heard a television interview of Professor Friend, economics professor of the University of Pennsylvania, who agreed with the other professors.

I think that with all those factors in favor of increasing the salaries of Government employees, this committee should give consideration to the bills before it and come up with something that ought to be reasonably satisfactory to the employees and members of Government and the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you have to say about the present proposal?

Mr. LANGAN. I am in favor of H.R. 9531 and H.R. 9935.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you think of the President's proposal? Mr. LANGAN. I think the President's proposal is too little and too late. It does not provide an adequate increase, and prolongs it too long to be of much benefit. It provides a person in Government would have to wait 27 years to reach the top item in that proposal.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you think about our national debt and the increase all the time and the deficit?

Mr. LANGAN. That comes up every time that the Government employees ask for an increase in salary, or an adjustment in salary. I do not know the answer to that. That is someone else's problem, to provide the money. Certainly I do not think it is fair to be able to find money for every other purpose except to provide adequate salaries for Government employees.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I respect completely your right to advocate this pay increase, but I find one statement in the appendix A which, very frankly, staggers me.

In it you say:

I am firmly convinced that higher Federal salaries would attract a level of competence that would so improve Government operations that there would be no out-of-pocket costs at all.

Do you really believe that, sir?

Mr. LANGAN. That is the opinion of Mr. Randall.

Mr. JOHANSEN. This is a statement of Mr. Randall?

Mr. LANGAN. Yes. It is in this book. Having had no experience. in handling employment outside, I think Mr. Randall is much more competent to speak.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I did not realize, because this was not in quotes, that it was Mr. Randall's statement, but do you subscribe to this particular statement?

Mr. LANGAN. Yes; I would agree with Mr. Randall.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Do you actually believe under the Morrison bill the $1,850 million of annual increase in payroll costs is going to be absorbed so there is not out-of-pocket expense to the American taxpayers through increased competence and improved performance of Federal employees?

Mr. LANGAN. No, I do not think that is true in the manner in which you put it. It is quite difficult to determine exactly what the Government would save in questions of this kind.

For the most part, all the Government has to sell is services. There are no commodities involved and no price tags put on anything. Mr. JOHANSEN. You would repudiate Mr. Randall's statement? Mr. LANGAN. I certainly would not. He is more qualified to make a statement like that than I. I will accept his statement.

Mr. GROSS. I have read Mr. Randall's report. I note that he cites the State of Michigan as one of the States where they have done a good job of raising salaries. The last I heard they were in real serious financial difficulty in the State of Michigan. There was a time not so long ago when they could not pay some of their teachers' salaries in the State of Michigan. I do not know how much credence to put in Mr. Randall's statement, Mr. Langan.

Mr. LANGAN. I just want to submit this-the Government should not pay substandard wages, pay less than what should be paid for the service that is given because of budgetary considerations.

Mr. GROSS. Do you think it is a very good example to use a State that has gotten out of line with its spending in paying salaries, as Mr. Randall says the State of Michigan does, among others? It is in very serious financial trouble. They cannot start the printing presses in Michigan and pay off these debts they have incurred.

Mr. LANGAN. Does Mr. Gross imply it is because of the salaries this situation has been brought about?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Randall says they are one of the outstanding States in the paying of salaries to employees, and uses that as one of the reasons why the pay of the Federal workers should be increased.

Mr. LANGAN. I do not know anything about Michigan.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I am deeply grieved to have my colleague from Iowa cite the facts about Michigan. I still am just appalled at this statement. I think whether it is yours or Mr. Randall's, I think the statement that $1,850 million increase can be absorbed through improved Government operations so there is not out-of-pocket cost at all is utterly preposterous. I do not care who said it.

I wish I could get it clearly on the record as to whether you endorse and accept that premise in your testimony.

Mr. LANGAN. All I can say, Mr. Randall has distinguished himself in the business world. He was chairman of the board of Inland Steel. He has citations from the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. JOHANSEN. None of those impress me at all. I do not care if he is president of the largest corporation in the United States. Any person who makes a statement that $1,850 million increase in payroll costs can be absorbed so there is no out-of-pocket costs simply is talking beyond all reason.

That is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Mr. ADDABBо. I believe Mr. Randall does not state what the increases should be.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Would the gentleman suggest what that rate of increase would be that would bring it within the capacity of absorption so there would be no increased out-of-pocket cost?

Mr. ADDABBO. Not being an economist, I could not do it at this point. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Randall does support the pay reform bill of the administration?

Mr. ADDABBO. I do not know.

Mr. GROSS. I am sure you will find he does.

Mr. ADDABBO. The pay reform bill of the administration?

Mr. GROSS. Yes.

Mr. ADDABBO. Which is less than $1 billion.

Mr. GROSS. But it is several million plus.

Mr. ADDABBо. Is it not a fact, due to the lower salary rates in the low grades, there has been a tremendous turnover and there is constantly a tremendous turnover in the lower grades in the postal service?

Mr. LANGAN. That is right. There has been quite a bit of turnover. Mr. Biemiller testified that at Phoenix, Ariz., it was 17 percent.

Mr. ADDABBO. Does not this constant turnover create a loss to the Government so there is money wasted in training men?

how

Mr. LANGAN. It costs a great deal of money, but no one can say much it really costs. It is one of those factors that is very hard to put your finger right on. It costs money to train people, I think we all agree to that. How much it costs-there is the point of argument. Mr. GROSS. They probably did not like the climate in Arizona. Mr. ADDABBO. It is a better climate than Washington.

Mr. UDALL. I have a hunch Mr. Gross is not trying to make friends on this committee.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I want to extend my sympathy to the gentleman from Arizona. Apparently both Arizona and Michigan are on the gentleman's blacklist.

Mr. UDALL. We are all being assaulted, and I think some uncomplimentary remarks are going to be made about Arkansas before we get through.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Ross Messer, legislative representative, National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees.

STATEMENT OF ROSS MESSER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND GENERAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Ross A. Messer. I am legislative representative of the National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees, representing the maintenance employees of the postal field service and General Services Administration, with members in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Our national office is located at 724 Ninth Street NW., Washington, D.C.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for your interest in adequate salaries for postal and other Federal employees. I also wish to express our appreciation to Congressman James H. Morrison, and the other members of the committee, who have introduced salary increase proposals.

Many facts and figures have been presented to the committee to justify the need of a salary increase for postal and Federal employees. The cost-of-living increase and the change in living standards have affected the maintenance employees to the same extent it has affected other postal and Federal employees.

The estimated average salary of the full-time post office maintenance employee as of June 30, 1961, was $4,600 per annum. The average salary for the post office maintenance service of $4,600 per annum would provide a gross biweekly take-home pay of $177.60. The deductions of: $11.45 (61/2 percent) for retirement; life insurance, $1.25; health insurance, $3.12; Federal income tax, $13.60 (an employee with a wife and two children); leave a net biweekly take-home pay of $148.09, or $74.05 a week.

The average take-home pay of $74.05 per week for maintenance employees does not include city, county, and State taxes, which actually reduced the paycheck to an even greater extent.

The administration has presented material to the committee showing that certain of the higher paid employees' salaries have lagged behind the cost of living, while the salaries of the lower grade employees have exceeded the cost of living. This is true percentagewise. However, I would like to point out that dollarwise, it is a different story.

The average salary of the maintenance service is $120 above the top step of PFS, level 2, $4,480 per annum. This means that all employees in level 1 and all employees in level 2 with less than 18 years of service are receiving less than the average salary in the maintenance service of $4,600 per annum.

The maintenance service laborer, now janitor, PFS, level 1, has received an increase of 46.2 percent since 1950, while the postmaster in New York, N.Y., the highest paid postmaster, has received an increase of 34.1 percent during the same time. Dollarwise, it is an entirely different story. The laborer, now janitor, PFS, level 1, has received an increase totaling $1,325 since 1950, while the postmaster in New York, N.Y., the highest paid postmaster, has received increases totaling $4,125. During the 12-year period, the postmaster in New York, N.Y., has received an increasing totaling $2,800 more than the laborer, now janitor, PFS, level 1. The increases are as follows:

Mr. Chairman, in making the above comparison, we do not deny the need of the higher salaried employees for a salary increase. However, we do want to make the point that even though percentage wise the lower salaried employees have received greater percentage increases, dollarwise, it is altogether a different story.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place this association on record as endorsing the general provisions of H.R. 9531, introduced by Congressman James H. Morrison. This bill contains the longevity provisions which were vetoed last year. In addition, it grants a muchneeded salary adjustment for postal employees.

The postal field service schedule, as set forth on page 2 of H.R. 9531, sets forth adequate increases for the employees in levels 1 through 5. However, beginning with level 6, the adjustments do not appear to meet the needs of the employees. Therefore, it is suggested