many salaries in the retail and service industries. It is the minimum which they have a right to expect us to approve.

I am glad to note that H.R. 9531 already has substantial support in the Congress. In the House alone over 90 Members have introduced legislation along the lines of this bill. I respect fully urge the members of this committee to approve this pay adjustment bill in the interests of equity and justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Farbstein.

The next witness is Hon. Leonor K. Sullivan, of Missouri.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, as quite a number of the members of this committee already know, I am very much interested in the pay raise legislation which you have been considering for Federal employees, since I have discussed the importance of this legislation from time to time with individual members of the committee during the course of the session in the cloakroom, or at lunch, or in the House Chamber, or walking over to the Capitol. However, since you have designated your hearing today specifically for comments from Members of Congress on the pay raise legislation, I want to take advantage of this opportunity in order to put my interest in the issue formally on record in these hearings.

I don't know of any committee of Congress which has tried any harder than you have done to hear every possible shade of opinion on a given issue, and I congratulate you for the thoroughness with which you have studied the problem of providing fair treatment for Federal employees. But I hope that we can now look forward to action in the very near future to clear the legislation for the House so that all of us who are anxious to vote for and enact a good pay raise bill before adjournment can add such a measure to the record of this session. Certainly, the needs of the postal employees and other Federal employees for pay raises, and for salary scales which are competitive with those paid in private sectors of the economy, are now completely documented in the hearings you have conducted.

It would be presumptuous of me, after the many, many hours you have devoted to these hearings, to come before you today and insist on any one single approach to this problem. The members of this committee have the basic responsibility for recommending the form of the legislation the House will consider, just as I and my colleagues on the Committee on Banking and Currency or on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries have responsibilities of a like nature on the complex legislation which is assigned to us.

However, I want to assure the committee that I will support you in raising wage and salary levels to more reasonable levels for all Government employees. It is not only important that we do thisit is urgent. We want to keep our best employees in Governmentto encourage those with specialized skills and long service and good records to remain in the service and not become so discouraged at below-industry rates of pay that they accept other employment where their skills and abilities may be accorded somewhat higher pay scales. To me, it is not a question of choosing between groups of Federal

employees as to which should receive better treatment. Cost of living increases have hit all employees, no matter what grade or rating they hold. Differentials as between Government and private enterprise wage and salary scales are general.

I urge that, in solving this problem, we keep in mind that those lower down in the Government grades have a much, much harder task making ends meet and covering family needs than those in the higher grades, even though all employees have needs which they cannot now meet on Government pay. I urge, therefore, that in addition to raising the ceilings on top employee salaries, as proposed by the President, we deal with complete fairness across the board in providing effective salary raises for all. This will be money well spent, indeed, in cutting down job turnover and in attracting more good people into Government service.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Sullivan.

The next witness is Hon. John F. Baldwin, of California.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing before your committee on behalf of legislation to increase the pay of Federal postal employees and Federal classified employees. I have observed carefully the relationship between the rates of pay for postal employees and other Federal classified employees in the San Francisco Bay area of northern California as compared to those who are employed in civilian industry in the same area. In my opinion, the rates of pay for postal employees and other Federal classified employees should be adjusted upward so that these employees receive pay which is reasonable in relationship to the pay of employees of civilian industry in the same

area.

I have introduced a bill, H.R. 295, which would provide that the rates of compensation of officers and employees subject to the Classification Act of 1949 shall hereafter be fixed and adjusted by wage boards on the basis of prevailing rates and practices in the localities concerned. I should like to urge that your committee give consideration to the legislation along these lines so that Federal employees in high-pay-scale and high-cost-of-living areas will receive proper and just compensation. The San Francisco Bay area of northern California is one of the highest pay-scale and highest cost-of-living areas in the country. In my opinion, the adoption of legislation along the lines of H.R. 295 would be the only procedure which is likely to be fair to Federal employees in areas comparable to the San Francisco Bay area.

If the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, in its considered judgment, feels it necessary to pass legislation of a different nature, which would authorize across-the-board increases for Federal employees on a nationwide basis, I would like to urge that you give consideration to the high-wage-scale and high-cost-of-living areas and authorize an increase that would be adequate to take care of the needs of employees in these areas. Many post offices in the San Francisco Bay area are finding it difficult to employ competent employees because the

pay is not adequate to attract such employees in sufficient numbers. In this connection, I would like to urge that any final bill which is approved by your committee give fair treatment to the employees in the lower grades and classifications, where the great majority of employees are located. I do not believe that H.R. 10480 in its present form would be fair to the employees in these lower grades. If a bill of this type is to be adopted, there should be a more adequate pay increase provided for the employees in these grades.

I am convinced that a reasonable and just pay increase is merited at this time for Federal postal employees and classified Federal employees. I hope very much that your committee will vote out a bill to provide for such a pay increase as soon as possible so that the House of Representatives can favorably act upon this legislation during the current session of Congress.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin.

The next witness is Hon. Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to commend you and your committee for conducting hearings on vital and needed legislation providing for postal pay increases.

I believe that the postal employees should be entitled to the same compensation that their counterparts in private business and industry enjoy. A postal employee entering the service accepts a position that has a great deal of responsibility. The job requires much learning of special techniques that can be sold nowhere else. A postal worker's skills sentence him to remain on the job or leave it and start all over again. His only chance for advancement lies in being promoted to a supervisory position and they are very limited in number. These considerations should be weighed most carefully when we are considering pay increases for postal employees.

In recent weeks we have heard and read much of "noninflationary" wage increases. Readjusting the salaries of postal workers cannot, it seems to me, be considered inflationary. It is merely allowing this class of employees to maintain their position in our economy. To fail, however, to adjust salaries so that large segments of our population cannot keep up their standard of living or keep pace with the rest of the American population, is to invite an economic imbalance that could have serious consequences.

Therefore, I ask the committee to give favorable consideration to pending legislation which would give raises to postal employees. In particular I recommend to the committee's attention H.R. 9531, introduced by Congressman Morrison. Its provisions go far in effecting an equitable salary readjustment for our postal workers. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Zablocki.

The next witness is Hon. Don Magnuson, of Washington.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON MAGNUSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak in behalf of a pay increase for post office and other Government employees. I believe that an immediate increase plus periodic graded increases are necessary if Federal wage earners are to be granted salaries commensurate with those in private industry, and in keeping with the gradually increasing cost of living.

Our position as a free and democratic society is intimately related to the quality of our public administration. It is vital that the public service attract to its ranks and hold qualified men and women dedicated to the concepts of democratic government and to the programs which they administer.

The Federal service must never become a safe and comfortable refuge for the exile from the highly competitive world of private enterprise. To be sure, Government employment offers a security most often lacking in the free labor market. It is generally unaffected by seasonal displacement or by depressed market conditions. Fringe benefits related to Government service appear generally to be on a par with or superior to comparable areas of private enterprise.

It is erroneous to assume that salaries alone, no matter how vast remuneration may become, will be sufficient to attract not only competent personnel, but men and women of vision, imagination, and initiative; nor is it fair to assume that further increases in public expenditure will correct conditions which serve to stifle creativity and breed both intellectual and professional stagnation.

Equally, it is fallacious, unjust, and unreasonable to assume that opportunity for humanitarian service, where it exists, and devotion to democratic principle will override economic considerations with the type of men and women so desperately needed in the public sector. If we expect to attract competent men and women to Federal service, very simply we will have to pay something more than subsistence wages.

Federal service personnel share a vast body of responsibility, important both with reference to the size and complexity of the projects administered, and because of their peculiar functions. The success of Federal programs is largely determined in routine management areas. Like private industry, the Government requires a reservoir of talent from which to draw. Available evidence, however, appears to indicate that the discrepency between salaries in the public and in the private sectors has created serious recruitment problems.

It is my understanding that the legislation presently under consideration by the committee is based upon two general wage principles: that Federal salaries be roughly comparable to those in private industry for comparable work; and that internal alinement of salary scheduling be effected to reward initiative and extraordinary service. Both appear to be fundamentally sound principles of personnel management, and should considerably facilitate the recruitment and maintenance of a skilled Federal labor force.

I sincerely hope that some accommodation can be arranged between the proposals of Congressman Morrison of Louisiana and those of the administration extracting from each those elements which will

most strengthen the Federal service and be of greatest benefit to our public servants.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Magnuson.

The next witness is Hon. Victor L. Anfuso, of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR L. ANFUSO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. ANFUSO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first, I wish to extend to you sincere thanks for the current series of hearings on legislation to raise the salaries of postal and Federal workers, and for the opportunity to present my views on such legislation.

Second, may I call to your attention two bills which I introduced this year to deal with this problem and I trust you will give my bills, or similar bills, all due consideration. The two measures I introduced are H.R. 9533, the Postal Employees' Salary Act of 1962, which is the same as H.R. 9531 introduced by the distinguished member of this committee from Louisiana, the Honorable James H. Morrison; and H.R. 10033, the Federal Employees Salary Adjustment Act of 1962, which is the same as H.R. 9651, introduced by another distinguished member of this committee, the Honorable Arnold Olsen, of Montana. Since detailed analyses of these bills have already been presented to your committee, there is no need for me to do so now. I merely want to point out that the pay increase bill for postal employees has been endorsed by all postal groups, including both organizations of post office clerks, the rural carriers, and others. It also has the endorsement of the National Association of Letter Carriers and the Government Employees' Council, AFL-CIO. The pay increase bill for Federal employees is endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is no exaggeration to say that postal and Federal employees, particularly those in the lower income groups, are in deep economic trouble. They need a pay raise and they need it now. The pay raise granted them in 1960 was certainly welcome and helpful, but it fell short of giving these employees the economic equality and security which they seek. In the past 2 years the cost of living has continued its upward trend and wages in private industry have, likewise, risen proportionately. The average postal and Federal worker is again caught in the squeeze of trying to make ends meet and "catching up" with the economic parade.

In the fall of 1959, the Bureau of Labor Statistics made a study of the amount of money needed by a city worker's family in 20 cities and suburbs in various parts of the country. It sought to determine the average budget for such a family, neither "minimum maintenance" nor "luxury," but sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of living for four persons. It came up with figures ranging from $5,370 in Houston, Tex., to $6,567 in Chicago. The figure given for the needs of a four-person family in New York was $5,970.

Remember that this study was made nearly 3 years ago and the cost of living has risen even higher since then. Now compare these average family budget needs with the present salary of a letter carrier or clerk which ranges from $4,345 to $5,305 per year. In the city of New York, for example, such employees would be from $665 to $1,625