if, indeed, he did not know it all along, that the salary ceiling for lawyers in the Federal Government offers him little financial incentive to remain in the Government service.

I am grateful to the committee for this opportunity to appear on this subject. If I can be of further assistance in any way, I shall be pleased to do so.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Any questions by minority counsel? Any questions by the staff? Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is John J. Murphy, president of the National Customs Service Association.

Mr. Murphy, we welcome you to the committee. I know that all members of the committee are aware of the many courtesies that employees of the customs service extend to them on entering and leaving the country. You and your organization are a credit to Federal

service.

You may proceed.

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

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Yarborough for your kind thoughts. I assure you that any courtesies extended to you are merely in line with the duties that are outlined to customsmen.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John J. Murphy, and I am president of the National Customs Service Association. Our organization is comprised of employees of the customs service at all levels. Our membership is spread from the continental United States to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. We also have members in foreign countries where there are customs employees.

The subject of pay has always been a problem for us as it has been for other Federal employees. It is our experience that despite the action of Congress in revising pay levels, we continue to lag behind the cost of living and in many instances the pay of our members falls below that of their counterparts in industry.

We support most vigorously the President's pay reform plan and the concept of equal pay for equal work. Comparability with salaries paid in industry is a greatly to be desired goal. If the idea of comparability is a sound one-and we believe it is-it would be only fair and equitable to bring about comparability now rather than later. If the case for comparability is sound, there seems no valid reason to delay action.

With respect to the so-called supergrades of 16, 17, and 18, we believe that they should be made a part of the general schedule system. We do not think there is need for a numerical limitation on supergrades. If the level of work importance and responsibility is such that it belongs in a supergrade, it should, in all fairness, be placed there under the criteria justifying the allocation of any grade. It seems basically unfair to preclude allocation to a grade simply because of numerical limitation. It is the work that justifies the grade. If this is not possible, then comparability does not mean anything.

In our service we have seen the creation of the supergrade barrier act against the best interests of many deserving individuals. It often presents an obstacle that cannot be overcome and thwarts, the am

bitions of subordinates. For example, we may have an employee who is doing excellent work and whose duties and responsibilities have increased to the point where a higher grade is warranted. If the grade to which he must rise is in the present supergrade category, he is effectively prevented from receiving his proper remuneration simply because of the numerical limitation on grades at the superlevel. It is unreasonable that such a condition should continue and we urge this honorable committee to consider taking amendatory action.

Finally, as many of our members are at the lower GS level, we respectfully suggest that consideration be given to increasing the amount of raise proposed for employees in the low-pay brackets. It would be most unfair to limit them to the amounts proposed while other employees would be given substantially higher amounts.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear at this hearing and thank you for your courtesy and consideration. We know that the members of this committee understand thoroughly the pay problem of the Federal employee. As Federal employees we know that the future of this legislation is in good hands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

The next witness is Mr. R. D. Blakeslee, chairman, legislative committee, Patent Office Society.

STATEMENT OF R. D. BLAKESLEE, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY

Mr. BLAKESLEE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record my name is Ralph D. Blakeslee, and I am chairman of the legislative committee of the Patent Office Society. I notice that the hour is growing late and I wonder if I could just have the entire prepared statement inserted in the record and draw your attention to certain of the more important facts that you gentlemen should have, we feel, in order to make a determination as to how you are going to amend the classified salary acts.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes. Your statement will be printed in the record, together with the charts that are appended, and this article, "How Low Federal Salaries Are Hurting Government," will be filed with the record and included by reference. I reserve the right to order it printed in full, however. I will defer to the chairman and we may order this printed in full in the record.

Mr. BLAKESLEE. Whatever will be helpful. Thank you, sir. Senator YARBOROUGH. It will be included by reference at this time so that it will be available and may be considered as part of the record whether or not we reproduce it in full. Go ahead. (The statement of Mr. Blakeslee follows:)

Statement of R. D. Blakeslee, Chairman, Legislative Committee Patent OFFICE SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the membership of the Patent Office Society includes engineers, scientists, lawyers, and executives, both within and outside of Government. It is an organization devoted to the safeguarding and improvement of the patent system, which of course includes the Patent Office. In previous appearances before this committee, and in its Journal, the Patent Office Society has presented statistics on turnover in the Patent Office which showed that by far most of the young men who became patent examiner trainees

left the Office before serving 5 years. It was further shown that even examiners with many years of experience were leaving.2 What is the situation today?

The bar graph shows that, of 1,142 college graduates recruited between 1955 and 1959, only 379 remained in September 1961. The 763 who left represent a tremendous waste in terms of supervisory time and other Government resources invested in training these men.

Furthermore, we are still losing some of our most able senior examiners. During fiscal 1961, the Patent Office lost 15 experienced examiners from grades GS-13, 14, and 15. These are at salary levels that, supposedly, reward an employee for demonstrated professional competence. Of these 15, 1 rated as "excellent" transferred to another Government agency, while 7 rated as "excellent" went into private practice, and 1 rated as "outstanding" did likewise.

Why are these people leaving?

Patent examiners generally regard the shortcomings of the Office to be as follows: First, lack of professional atmosphere and opportunity to advance; second, depressing physical surroundings; and third, inadequate salary and salary prospects. These are, in general, valid complaints; accordingly the Patent Office is taking bold, forward-looking steps to remedy the first complaint, and the second is being remedied as far as possible within the inherent physical limitations of the present Patent Office quarters.

As to the third complaint, the Office is powerless to remedy the salary shortcomings without new legislation. The graph on page 6 shows that after about 4 years of service in the Office (at which time the average trainee approaches professional self-reliance and is about to enter his period of maximum usefulness to the Office) the young examiner is induced to recover his investment in a legal education by accepting an outside position paying a thousand dollars a year or so more than his Government salary.

At that time also, the financial demands of a growing family often force a decision to be made. Moreover, he sees that, upon attainment of full professional competence, he would make almost twice as much in private practice. The result is that many of the men who are confident of their potential have been leaving the Office, with all of the implications that this fact brings to mind. This also helps to explain why some of our senior examiners are leaving in spite of their stake in pension and seniority rights.

The manpower loss in the Patent Office is now becoming critical. The graph on page 5 shows this clearly. As noted before, of the 1,142 examiners recruited between 1955 and 1959, only 379 remained on September 30, 1961. Men from this group continue to leave, now, today, and before long the Patent Office will have lost most of the best men recruited in the "big" recruitment years of 1956–61. This loss is particularly grievous because the trend of the chart shows that the Office can expect to retain only about 200 examiners with more than 10 years' experience on its staff in 1965. The total supervisory force needed is about 230. Even assuming that every one of the remaining examiners with 10 years' or more experience is qualified to supervise, 30 positions will have to be filled by men who entered the Office after 1955. But almost all of our very best potential supervisors will have seen the salary differential, and left. Unless the trend is reversed, the Office may be forced to promote "second best" people to its supervisory positions. How can we keep our future trainees when they must be supervised by men who do not measure up to the men who leave?

How long can the patent system remain sound and retain public confidence if the patent grant, which is the heart of the system, is conferred by less than the best people available?

The Patent Office Society feels that the facts presented compel the society to urge that the general schedule be adjusted upwardly in the middle and upper grades, in order to make the pay of Government patent professionals and executives reasonably comparable to pay in private practice.

1 "How Low Federal Salaries Are Hurting Government." The graph on pp. 12, 13 shows that on Apr. 1, 1957, only 30 examiners remained out of 145 recruited in the years 1952, 1953, and 1954. Ibid., p. 10, "Sure, I know I am giving up increasingly valuable future retirement rights. But through social security and private plans, I'll get equal benefits. Meanwhile, even with my Government annuity reduced because of early retirement, working during regular working hours outside is raising my total income to over $5,000 more than my salary in the Office. Could I send my girls to college on money that I wouldn't get for 10 years, maybe when I am too old and feeble to enjoy anything that is left over? This way, I'm paying my bills as they come."