taken the comparability line up to GS-15 and them just projected it statistically in order to get these levels. Senator MONRONEY. Are step increases generally comparable to private industry? Mr. Macy. Yes: generally private industry follows a rate increase or more than 3 percent, which is the amount that is written into the Salary Reform Act schedules as the difference between rates within a grade. Senator MONRONEY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Forg Senator Foxe. Mr. Macy, would you say, taking a fare of $533 million in mind and taking the figure of $12 million in mind only for the executive, legislative, and the judiciary, that the reluctance really to achieve reasonable comparability is due to the fact that we bare been reluctant to look at 250 percent of the $533 million which wil give you the $12 million, to really look at that 242 percent, in a more realistic manner! Mr. Macy. I would agree with that observation completely. The CHAIRMAN. I see our friend from West Virginia. Do you have some questions. Senator Randolph ? Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not been privileged to listen to the statements of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Macy. I presume, Mr. Macy, you have endorsed the basic bill which is pending in this committee. Mr. MacT. Yes, sir. The bill that has been reported out of the House committee, H.R. 11 49, and is before this committee today. Senator RANDOLPH. Have you stated your views this morning on the advisability of an increase in salary for Members of the Congress! Mr. Macy. I have indicated that title II of H.R. 11049 which specifies an increase for Members of Congress is appropriate and as set forth in the bill maintains sound interrelationships among the branches of Government. Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, do you feel that the raise should be $100000 rather than any figures below that amount? Mr. Macy. Yes: I testifed earlier that my position was that a higher figure such as $10.000 would be more appropriate and entirely warranted in view of the information we have concerning the comparable salaries outside of Government. Senator RANDOLPH. Oze further question. Mr. Chairman. If in the judgment of the House and Senate no appreciable raise let's say a $2500 raise were the figure-would be included in the bill, you would think of the overall purpose of the increase for Federal employees. You would ask the President presumably to sign such a bill, is that true! Mr. Macy. Let me make certain that I understand your question fully. This is in the event that the Congress were to enact a bill that would call for an increase of $2.500 in congressional pay and in executive pay, what would my recommendation be to the Congress. I fear that that is an iffy" question which I hope will never have to be answered. However, I would feel that some increase would certainly be better than none. But I feel as small an increase as that would not go sufficiently far to rectify the inequities that exist at the present time or to meet the needs of the Federal service. It would perpetuate some of the compression problems that I described in my statement. It would make it exceedingly difficult for the career schedules to arrive at the comparability principle that was embodied in the 1962 act. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask that you also furnish to the committee a breakdown of the various departments, Post Office, and other Government workers, courts, legislative, and give us that in figures so we will have them right before us? Mr. MACY. Very good. With respect to the cost? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. A lot of people are asking about the cost and we want to have it so we can answer them forthwith so there will be no questions in regard to that matter. Mr. MACY. Mr. Chairman, I have here a table which was developed following a discussion in the House committee which I would be happy to place in the record at this point. This is the table from which I have drawn my responses. Senator MONRONEY. Will you also furnish the members with copies of that table? The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have that, too, ahead of the printing of the record. People will be asking us questions almost daily about this matter and what the cost will be, so we want to have it available. Mr. MACY. Very good. We will provide that immediately. (The table referred to follows:) 1 Sec. 124 writes into the bill an absolute mandate that the departments and agencies shall absorb 10 percent of the increased cost from their 1965 budgets as submitted by the President, coupled with a prohibition against the submission of any additional or supplemental request for funds to cover any part of the pay raise. The savings will be approximately $57,000,000. Moreover, this congressional mandate will immeasurably strengthen the hands of the Bureau of the Budget and top management in keeping all department and agency pay raise costs within the President's budget figure. The President's budget for fiscal year 1965 contains an allowance of $544,000,000 for civilian pay comparability. The CHAIRMAN. Let me say another thing. I think this is the first time that we have had the funds available prior to the legislature taking action. Mr. Macy. I believe that is the first time, although I do not qualify as a historian. The CHAIRMAN. You recommended in 1962 an increase in salaries and you come back now recommending another increase in salaries. Your proposed increases are a little bit above even what the House committee recommends. I want to commend you for taking the initiative in this matter. It is very difficult for the House and the Senate to act when the administration does not go along with it. Mr. Macy. Mr. Chairman, we feel a proposal of this type calls for a legislative-executive partnership. We are pleased to work with you in furthering this objective. The CHAIRMAN. I want to say another word. I know the committee endorses me when I say this: You have cooperated with the committee all along the way in giving us information and making recommendations and I know the committee appreciates that very much. I see we have the Senator from Delaware. Have you any questions at this time? Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I haven't any questions, but I want to assure Mr. Macy that I appreciate his appearing before the committee, also, and will study his testimony very carefully. Mr. MACY. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Randolph? Senator RANDOLPH. May I make a comment and couple it with a question! Mr. Macy, do you feel that because of the salary differentials between Government and private industry-I realize that this is rather an overall discussion of wages and salaries but do you believe that because of the inequities which you set forth, that there is a deterioration in the type of work being done for the Federal Government today! Or, is there within the personnel of our structure of Government the loyalty and that is not the exact word the attention to duty which has kept the Federal service jobs at a high level of efficiency! Mr. MACT. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that the level of performance has continued to improve. We have fgures that show increased productivity on the part of employees in the Post Office Department, the Veterans Administration, and many other departments and agencies. I believe it's a matter of equity that there be adequate compensation. I believe that the principle of comparability, which this committee took leadership in enacting in 1962, and which relates Federal pay rates to private enterprise rates, is completely sound. We have a joint responsibility to adhere to that principle with each passing year and to make certain that the efficient and loyal Federal employees do receive a rate that is comparable, particularly at the top where we have been lagging behind. We do not ask people who work for the Government it make a serious financial sacrifice in order to contribute their services. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. Macy. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? Mr. MACY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Since there is such a short time left, it would not be fair to have a witness start his testimony. I am going to ask that Mr. Staats of the Bureau of the Budget come back on Thursday. May I ask about how much time you expect to consume, Mr. Staats? Mr. STAATS. I would think, Mr. Chairman, a half or three-quarters of an hour would do it. I think you have covered it very well with Mr. Macy, but that depends on questions, of course. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will have some other witness here in case you get through in 30 minutes. I would like to place a statement of the National Civil Service League in the record at this point. I note that there is an attachment to the statement which contains endorsements of the bill from many people very high in business. (The statement and attachments follow :) Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE LEAGUE, Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: On behalf of the National Civil Service League, I should like to express our strong and continuing support for the principle of more equitable salaries for Cabinet members, Senators, Representatives, and the Federal judiciary. There is critical need to raise their compensation to levels more commensurate with their high responsibilities and more equitable in terms of advancing national pay standards. In our judgment, no measure is more important to the Government's retention and attraction of the best capacities in our society. As you may know, the league has been in the forefront of research and educational activity concerning the imperative need for adequate compensation of our Federal leadership personnel. It is our strong conviction that salaries of $50,000 for Cabinet members are wholly warranted on grounds of equity and in light of the transcendent weight of responsibilities which they carry. We stand firm on this point. This level and comparative compensation for members of the legislative and judicial branches has the positive support of leaders in the business and professional communities, as evidenced by their direct expressions to the league and otherwise. We are also convinced that the general public understands the genuine need for better salary incentives. In our view, the measure now under consideration by the House of Representatives increasing these salaries by $7,500 annually is a step in the right direction and will help. But, we fear, this amount will have limited effect in arresting the flight of top level personnel from Federal service by more attractive offers of private employment. We appreciate the realistic problems of obtaining legislative approval for increases of the magnitude that are justified and critically needed. But we strongly urge consideration of a salary policy which more nearly approaches the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems chaired by Mr. Clarence B. Randall. Please let us know if we can be of any consultative assistance to the committee during its consideration of this vital subject. I am confident that we have a unity of purpose with regard to competence in Government personnel and efficiency in the public service. Sincerely, BERNARD L. GLADIEUX, Chairman, Board of Directors. NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE LEAGUE, NEW YORK, NY. FEDERAL SALARIES The National Civil Service League released today statements from a number of distinguished business and industrial leaders voicing strong support for increasing the compensation of U.S. Cabinet officers, Senators and Representatives, and the Federal judiciary. Specifically, these men were commenting on the recommendations of the Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems, chaired by Mr. Clarence B. Randall, which submitted its report to President Kennedy last year, recommending a salary of $50,000 for Cabinet officers in place of the present $25,000 maximum, $35.000 for Senators and Congressmen in place of the present $22,500 level, and $60,000 for Supreme Court Justices in contrast to the present $35,000. Proposals for advancing top Government salaries to levels more commensurate with their responsibilities are now under consideration by the Congress. The Federal budget recently submitted by President Johnson included funds for this purpose. Last year, in connection with the Randall study, the League sponsored a broad survey embracing some 400 national leaders in business, education, journalism, and the professions which reflected a strong consensus that salary levels for Cabinet officers. Senators, and Representatives are seriously inadequate and should be moved sharply upward. More than half (52 percent) of those participating expressed judgment that Cabinet members should receive anzuâì compensation of at least $50,000 or higher. Just about half were in favor of at least $35,000, or an even higher level, for Senators and Representatives. It may be noted that congressional salaries have not been adjusted since 1955. According to Bernard L. Gladieux, chairman of the league, "the league stands for efficiency, quality, and economy in the public service. It actively supports all measures designed to improve public management and reduce the cost of Gorernment by better administration. However, fair and adequate compensation for top policy and managerial posts is prerequisite to an efficient and responsive governmental system. The league is convinced that our national leadership is seriously underpaid for what is expected of them. Current pay levels do not recognize the heavy weight of their responsibility and do not represent equity in terms of advancing national salary standards. "The results of last year's survey, the statements released today, and the many other expressions of citizen opinion directed to the league indicate the pul lic generally is coming to appreciate the fact that appointment or election to high office should not be limited preponderantly to those who can afford to make substantial monetary sacrifice for the privilege of public service.” Excerpts from the statements, arranged in alphabetical order, follow, Ralph E. Ablon, chairman and president, Ogden Corp. "As a businessman and as a citizen. I strongly support the recommendations of the National Civil Service League concerning increased salaries for Cabinet officers, Senators, and Congressmen, and the Federal judiciary * * *. Increasing salaries to levels more commensurate with their responsibilities for the welfare and security of the of the Nation will have two major effects on our governmental operations. First, superior men. regardless of their personal wealth, will be more readily attracted to public service. Second, and even more critical. superior public servants, once attaracted to Government roles, are more likely to stay on their jobs as long as they are needed instead of as long as their savings hold out." Winthrop W. Aldrich, board of directors, Rockefeller Center, Inc. "It has been my conviction for a very long time that the salaries paid by the Federal Government to Senators, Congressmen. Supreme Court Justices, and other high officials of the Government have been inadequate when compared with the salaries of similar officeholders in large State and municipal governments. Moreover, the competition of our business, philanthropic and educational corporations for men of outstanding ability has made it more and more difficult to attract qualified individuals into the service of the Federal Government. I believe that the recommendations made by the Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems to Congress over a year ago were no more than adequate to insure the payment of salaries commensurate with the vital responsibilities assumed by these officials |