Postal field service-Comparison-4th step rates of current (schedule II) and proposed (H.R. 11049) salary schedules with comparability pay lines for 1961, 1962.1963

1 In October 1962, incumbents in this level were given an extra within-grade step worth 3.3 percent. * Employees in his grade received no pay increase in January 1964.

The CHAIRMAN. It is true in the lower grades you do have comparability and it kind of scales on up to grade 15 and stays pretty close all the way, but it gets a little bit larger from 5 up to 15?

Mr. JONES. Yes. Take grade 5, for example. Under the bill grade 5 at the comparability pay line of the fourth step is $5,495. The actual arithmetic on 1963 comparability based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures comes out to $5,520.

Now, that is certainly in the ballpark on comparability.

Mr. STAATS. Senator Carlson, what happened was, in 1962, in fixing the schedule which went into effect January 1, Congress assumed they would enact another bill last year and raise the top. That did not happen. Therefore, we got some confusion at the top. We got an overlap. Also, it was not possible to adjust the grades going back to about grade 8 to meet the comparability line.

The expectation had been that this would be done last year. It was not done. So, essentially, what we are asking this year is to go back and correct the difficulty that presented itself, because of the $20,000 ceiling last year.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will recall, our report so stated that we would have a bill to correct those inequities which occurred when the January 1964 adjustment went into effect.

Mr. STAATS. That is correct.

Senator CARLSON. If Congress approves this bill with the percentages permitted in the bill, will that take care of the comparability for 1964, 1965, or 1967, barring some inflationary period?

Mr. STAATS. Our expectation would be that in the future recommendations, we could bring all of these schedules through grade 15 up to comparability.

Senator CARLSON. By the enactment of this bill?

Mr. STAATS. This bill would not do that. This bill would give you comparability at the very lower grades, and something less than that on beyond that up to grade 18. The comparability principle is one that we firmly endorse. It is a matter of what the budget will permit and how fast Congress will be willing to bring into effect full comparability.

Senator CARLSON. I was not here when the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission testified, Mr. Macy. Had I been here, I would have asked him some questions in regard to section 303 which is found on page 43 of the bill in regard to the authorization that the bill gives the President to shift civil service employees in two or three or four grades.

I am going to ask this of Mr. Jones. I do not know if I should even ask him this question, because he is now in the Budget Bureau and he may not wish to answer it. But I well remember the time when he was Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

Is this not a departure from anything we have had in the past? Mr. JONES. To have the President allocate positions?

Senator CARLSON. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir; it is.

Senator CARLSON. I am going to say, very frankly, it gives me some concern, and I do not know what the situation will be before we report this bill. I have had a very high regard for the Civil Service Commission and the way they have handled the operation of our Federal civil service employees.

If we enact this bill, it becomes public law and, first, establishes a principle which I think might far exceed what is the language in the bill.

Secondly, no one knows who will be President 20 or 30 years from It seems to me that this should be given some serious thought.

now.

It is a departure.

Mr. JONES. I am perfectly willing to express myself on it.
Senator CARLSON. I would be happy if you would.

Mr. JONES. The reasoning behind this set of provisions really has three focuses. First, under the Executive Pay Act and its amendments, it has been almost impossible to get and maintain a rational salary structure.

We have 18 or 19 rates which the Congress has individually authorized for individual positions.

The second point is that there has been a good deal of individualI think I use the word advisedly-comparison of one level of a job with another level of a job on the basis of an assumed likeness of subject matter to be covered. This has resulted in a concentration of executive branch salaries in presidential positions with very little differentiation existing between the duties of different agencies or the duties of individual jobs.

The third aspect of the thing was, that from time to time it has been determined that a job takes on a greater degree of importance for one reason or another and that it might be very useful for the President to have the authority to elevate that job within the executive pay level

scale.

These things, of course, would be, in one sense of the word, subject to the review of the Congress, because we have to come before them to

get the money. But we have the strong feeling that it would save the time of the Congress, provide a better and more rational pay structure, and result in a degree of flexibility which the President does not now have.

Senator CARLSON. I am sure you remember as Chairman, that the executive branch asked for a large number of positions that would be excepted from the Civil Service Commission, and this committee did not look with much favor on it. I am not sure that the Civil Service Commission did, either, at that time.

Mr. JONES. This provision does not relate to career jobs primarily, Senator Carlson, but to executive positions.

Senator CARLSON. Just use the words "political appointees.”

Mr. JONES. Political appointees. However, some of them are really career people, because there are a number of career bureau chiefs in here, some of whom have Senate confirmation and some of whom do not. It is a mixed bag of Presidential and department appointees at the political level in the sense of being bureau chiefs on up.

Senator CARLSON. I can see where it has some merit, but I see where an individual in a top position can take care of his friends and enbarrass some other people. That is what really concerns me.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say to the Serator froin Kais I have talked with several other members of this committee. I have not found one that wants to give that power to the President. I was just now discussing it with Senator Fong when you did bing itp. He also thinks the legislative brauch should held control of it.

Senator CARLSx. I appreciate the statement o, the bat of the chairman, because it does give me some concern, that we should maintain a strong Chul Service Commission and we want to make it Lore helpful to our Federal en bioters,

Mr. STAATS. The thought was to give the Presideur flexio ity. We have, at the present time, for example, 24 different le er a EXCOVE pay largely because we have hac piecemea legislation. Our hope vaf. through this device, we conic keep uniformly or a sX- or fie-ieve! basis, depending upon which number the Congress Geniter upon.

The dennitions we are at the bottom of page 48 ane on page $4 of the bill are an effort to define and narrow down the Cisererior a respect to the alioration of jobs at these levers, Periste be tightened up. Er enabY WE WONÓ de 2015 erziel implication that Senator (ariso, mentoner.

Senator CARLSON. Thank you. Mr. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other Guestions?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Staats. I think you answered il respotise to ar inquiry from the Sevator fre. K would meet the comparably studieris aˆí in the recolinende in rea❤w in the HousVL. I.R the appropriate aut porn jes De House.

Watch Here wold meet the colipata 1962 jeve in. EL 14f it Decatur iar? Mr. STAATS. I: orier to uniuers alr I tille I have to espalda answer to your question, that the 10m2 us We co would be an annual report from the President baser of the Labor Statisties data. The 100 budget recommendation

upon the 1962 data that was available at that time. And it would have applied comparability at all levels.

It did not become law. Congress took no action on that.

The House bill, in an effort to meet the comparability adjustment based on later data, adjusted the first five grades so as to meet the comparability line based on the latest information. But there is a $20,000 ceiling in the bill. Therefore, we have a compression from $20,000 down to about grade 8 in the House bill so that unless these top grades are moved up, we cannot move up these other career grades to meet the comparability test.

Now, we have not submitted a recommendation based upon the 1963 data. This, we would presume, would be done at a later date. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Should there not be some space left between the so-called congressional ceiling and the highest grade at the time? Mr. STAATS. Yes, sir; that is correct. That is one of the reasons we favor the higher limit of $35,000 instead of the $32,500.

Senator FONG. Mr. Staats, your GS-5 to GS-15, you have not followed the 1963 comparability principle. Now, can we also say that was not followed under the postal service schedule?

Mr. STAATS. I believe that is correct.

Senator FONG. So we have an inequality existing, also, in the postal service schedule?

Mr. STAATS. Yes. It has to do with grade level rather than service. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

We certainly thank you, Mr. Staats and Mr. Jones, for coming here this morning and testifying before us. I think we have gained a lot of information by having you come.

The next witness is to be the Honorable Richard J. Murphy, Assistant Postmaster General. I wonder if he would like to start, or would he prefer to wait until the next meeting?

Mr. MURPHY. At your pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Since we only have a few minutes, would you be able to come back Monday, May 11, at 9?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

Several statements have been received to date for placement in the hearing record. I will place them in as we go along from day to day. I have just been handed a statement from the Transportation Association of America and one from Max Jordan, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. They will be entered at this point. (The statements are as follows:)

Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON,

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Washington, D.C., May 6, 1964.

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the board of directors of the Transportation Association of America, I would like to urge your committee to support substantial increases in the compensation payable to members of the regulatory agencies, particularly those affecting transportation, such as the Civil Aeronautics Board, Federal Maritime Commission, and Interstate Commerce Commission. We understand that you have this subject under active consideration and hope that appropriate legislation can be enacted before the current session of Congress adjourns. TAA is a national transportation policymaking organization whose membership consists of representatives of transport users, investors, and carriers of all modes,

including air, freight forwarder, highway, oil pipeline, railroad, and water carriers. All of these interests participate actively in our continuing efforts to establish sound national policies for the maintenance of a strong transport system under private enterprise.

It is because of our longstanding interest in attracting and maintaining in office the most competent personnel available that TAA in 1956 actively supported substantial salary increases for agency members, in 1961 renewed its policy of support, in 1963 strongly supported favorable recommendations by the Randall panel, and has since then also urged the approval of salary increases by the House of Representatives.

A copy of our publication on this subject, entitled "Good Pay for Good Government,” which was reproduced in the Congressional Record on October 28, 1963, is enclosed for your information.

Sincerely,

HAROLD HAMMOND,

President.

GOOD PAY FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT

THE NEED TO ADJUST AGENCY MEMBER SALARY SCALES

The need for holding on to top-caliber transport aponcy members TAA is concerned about keeping the 21 member positions on the Civil Aeronauties Board. Interstate Commerce Commission, and Federal Maritime Commission filled with men who have become knowledgeable about the complex problems of transportation.

It is generally recognized that during the period since the end of World War II there has occurred a rapid increase in the problems and responsibilities assumed by the Federal Government. This trend, accompanied by the quickening pace of our national economy, has increased the demand for Federal officers with sufficient ability and experience to qualify for public service. Such excellence "will neither be obtained quickly, nor will it be retained for adequate periods, until we compensate our top officers on a basis commensurate with the complex and difficult roles assigned to them." (Randall report to President, June 1963.)

The extensive obligations and duties imposed upon the CAR. IOC, and FMC members responsible for the economic regulation of common carrier transport is apparent from the fact that in 1962 these 3 agencies decided 9.120 formal proceedings. These members were also involved in a vast number of policy probe lems affecting safety, legislation, litigation, research, enforcement, and economie regulations.

It is exceedingly difficult to keep these 21 positions filled with experienced and seasoned men who will exercise enlightened and of jective judgment in all matters requiring decision. For example, such difficulty is highlighted by the fact that 13 of the 22 CAB members who served prior to the present incumbents occupied such positions less than 3 years, only half the 6-year term of office. Fewer that one-third of these members served to the end of their appointed terms brief, this abbreviated service is not good—it is not in the public interest. The history of agency member salary structure

The Congress, in 1887, created the Interstate Commerce Commission the first regulatory agency of the Federal Government. The annual salary of the Comemissioners was then fixed at $7,500 per year.

During the next 30 years this salary periodically increased reaching a $12.000 level in 1920. The ICC members' salary was reduced to $10.000 per year in 1932 as an economy measure during the depression. It was again restored 12 years later to $12.000 per year, raised to $15,000 per year in 1949, and to the present level of $20,000 per annum in 1956. This salary level also prevails today for the CAB and FMC, with the Chairmen of these agencies authorized to receive $20,500 per year.

State, local government, and other officials are better paid

A 1963 Civil Service Commission study showed the following comparative salaries:

Over 900 Governors, mayors and city managers, administrative and professional executives, judges and public corporation officers receive annual salaries exceeding $25,000 per year-to a high of $60.000 per annum.