your interests whether or not they have any right to be in the air. And more often than not, when he has to examine them, they are probably not qualified or they would not be there.

So he has this difficult decision of making a recommendation up to our medical advisory panel. And in the end, I have to decide whether the man should be given an exemption to fly.

Now, you want this based upon the best medical advice because the best medical advice is not exact or perfect. And so, the fact that we cannot get these men is, I think, a very serious flaw in the system of safety we are trying to build for you.

Mr. HENDERSON. I might comment that I think we will still have this problem, the problem of the test pilot, even if we were to adopt this bill and that perhaps we need to look at some of these exceptional cases and get testimony with regard to them and alleviate them in a special manner.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORRISON. Our time is up, and the House is now in session, so the committee will stand adjourned.

Mr. Administrator, you have been very kind to come before us, and I think you have answered many questions to the satisfaction of the committee. We appreciate your coming before us.

Our colleague, Hon. William S. Broomfield of Michigan, would like to make a statement to the committee this morning which will include the tabulation of a questionaire which he sent to postal workers in his district. Mr. Broomfield, we will be happy to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD, A REPRESENTA

TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I imagine that the members of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee have been bombarded with statistics, cost-of-living estimates, and average pay scales in a veritable deluge of figures in support of one pay plan or another for our postal and classified employees.

Today, I would like to forget this contemplation of a mythical national average postal worker for a moment, and turn instead to conditions which exist in my own congressional district in Oakland County, Mich.

My district is suburban in nature, immediately north of the city of Detroit. Local taxes are high, and I am sure you are aware of the drain that Federal taxes place on the pocketbooks of our citizens.

Municipal facilities are new because major population growth has occurred in the past decade. Schools, water mains, sewers and storm drainage were installed during a period when costs were the highest, and these added to the tax burden.

The cost of living is high, considerably higher than in adjacent rural areas, and even higher than in nearby Detroit which is an area not noted for its low cost of living.

Wages are high in the Detroit area. Factory workers receive more per hour than in any other comparable area in the United States.

Under our free enterprise system, our postal workers are competing with the workers in private industry for homes, for groceries,

for clothing, and the other items which make up the essentials of a monthly budget.

It has been my observation of postal workers in my congressional district that they are having a very difficult time making ends meet. Many are being forced to the financial wall by high living costs. Many are having difficulty in providing the necessities for their families, let alone a few of the luxuries.

To assist the members of this distinguished committee in its deliberations on this subject of postal pay, I mailed a questionnaire to the postal employees in my district.

I think you, Mr. Chairman, and your fellow members of the committee will find the answers to some of my questions interesting and informative.

I think it will be plain for all to see that some adjustment, some help, some relief must be given to our postal employees, particularly in the lower echelons of the postal service, if they are to make ends meet, if their children are not to suffer because of a shortage of ready cash, or if they are to be persuaded to stay with the postal service as employees of our Federal Government.

You will find statements by many, in these replies to my questionnaire, that postal employees in many instances are unable to buy a home under FHA because their salary level is not high enough to qualify for a home loan.

You find many instances where mothers with large families have to supplement the family income with an outside job, away from the children, in order to make ends meet. In other cases, postal workers have had to take second jobs to pay bills, to provide a roof over their heads, or food in the mouths of their families.

Sometimes the father has to work at two jobs, and the mother has to work as well to provide the wherewithal to keep the family financially solvent.

Many told me that they were forced to borrow substantial amounts of money to pay off previous debts, a practice which all of us agree can only lead to ultimate financial disaster for a family if it is permitted to continue over too long a period of time.

A great many said that there simply was no way that they could send their children to college, as much as they would like to, and even though their children are making good marks in school and are considered college material.

Medical and dental bills hit these families hard. There is barely enough for the essentials, and teeth straightening and other parts of dental and medical care are too often neglected or ignored simply because there isn't enough money to pay the bills.

Some have cashed in insurance policies. Many indicated that they were forced to consolidate their debts so that payments would be easier to meet. Others said that a vacation is out of the question because the money for a trip out of town was needed for other, more essential, things.

Quite frankly, I don't know how typical these postal workers are in relation to the entire Nation. I don't know whether they are a hypothetical part of a national average mailman who is so many dollars in debt, who has so much income, and who has 2.7 children.

But I do think it is evident from the replies I have received that the

postal workers in my area are hurting. They are not earning enough to make ends met, unless they do not have children or their spouses have second jobs.

I do know that they are having difficulty in buying homes, in simply finding adequate shelter over the heads of their families. They are pressed hard to meet payments, and any unanticipated expenditures to cope with an emergency often throws them helplessly, hopelessly into debt from which they have an almost impossible task paying past-due bills.

The future looks bleak to them. There is despair and some bitterness. Hope for making ends meet in the future looks pretty dim to these employees of the Federal Government, and I think this is neither a desirable nor a healthy situation.

May I urge the members of this fine committee to not only take into consideration the mythical average postman, the mythical average postal clerk, but also the real, living human beings who are attempting to live within their means in areas where costs are high and taxes are especially crippling.

They have to live with any salary that Congress sees fit to give them, and I think it is in the best interests of our Nation that pay scales for postal workers take into consideration more than hypothetical averages on a nationwide basis, but also the effect of these pay scales on those living in high-cost urban and suburban areas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SURVEY OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES CONDUCTED BY CONGRESSMAN
WILLIAM S. BROOMFIELD

Some 252 surveys were answered by the postal workers in the 18th District of Michigan.

A total of 96 of those responding indicated they have a second job. This represents 38 percent with another source of income to help support themselves. A total of 199, or 80 percent of those responding have children. (Only 3 of the 234 were single.)

Only 20 have children in college, and this represents 8 percent of those answering questionnaires.

A total of 103 have wives working, and this represents 41 percent of employees with wives employed.

A total of 216, or 86 percent, are buying their own homes, while only 7 of the total answering indicated they owned their homes.

A total of 205, or 81 percent, indicated they had borrowed money for one reason or another during 1961. Loans were made in the amounts of from $30 to $2,300. Purposes of the loans were listed as consolidation of debts, medical and hospital bills, home repairs, real estate taxes, tuition for child's education, car repairs, dental bills, Christmas giving, used cars, appliances, and household furnishings.

Mr. MORRISON. The committee will stand adjourned until Tuesday morning at 10 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 15, 1962.)

REVISION OF MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY SALARY

SYSTEMS

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 215, House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. James H. Morrison (acting chairman) presiding.

Mr. MORRISON. The committee will come to order, please.

Today we shall resume hearings on legislation pending before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee to provide pay increases for postal and other Federal employees.

This morning it is our pleasure to hear from two more distinguished officials of the executive branch of our Government, Hon. Henry H. Fowler, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, and Hon. Charles S. Murphy, Under Secretary of Agriculture.

Before we proceed, I should like to make the following announce

ment:

On May 16, May 22, and May 23, the committee will receive the testimony of other officials in the executive branch of the Government. Following the completion of their testimony, on Thursday, May 24 at 10 a.m., we will begin to receive testimony from postal and Federal employee organizations.

The first witness on Thursday, May 24, will be Mr. Jerome Keating, vice president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, and on days following we shall hear representatives of other postal and Federal employee organizations.

We shall now hear from the distinguished Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. Fowler, will you proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY H. FOWLER, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to appear before you today in support of H.R. 10480, the Federal salary reform bill, which has been recommended to the Congress by the President.

This legislation will go a long way toward rectifying the most serious deficiencies in Federal salary scales today. At the same time, it fully recognizes the priorities imposed by our budgetary and economic situation, and provides only those pay adjustments essential for the efficient and effective conduct of Government. It is the con

84357-62-pt. 1-15

219

sidered view of the Treasury Department that these priorities are not recognized by any one of several other proposals currently before this committee, each of which would provide sizable increases at all levels of the Federal salary scale, fully effective immediately or even retroactively. Enactment of any one of these alternative measures would, in our view, be contrary to sound economic and financial policy. Others testifying before this committee have reviewed in detail the proposals in H.R. 10480-the internal consistency of the proposed salary scales and the method of determining their comparability with private industry, the development of a pay line and its extension to the higher grades and to statutory systems outside of the Classification Act, the plan for periodic review on the basis of similar surveys conducted annually, and all the rest.

The chief purpose of my appearance before you is to provide you with the views of the Treasury Department as to the fiscal and general economic impact of the salary reform proposals. Others who have testified and will testify are much more conversant with the full range of problems resulting from the existing Federal pay scales, including the difficulties in obtaining and keeping-personnel competent to deal with the complex problems confronting the Government today, particularly at the higher salary grades.

Without going into detail, however, I would like to confirm that our own experience in the Treasury Department supports the general conclusions expressed to you by Chairman Macy, Deputy Budget Director Staats, and other spokesmen for the administration, as to the vital need for correction in the Federal pay structure. We have found repeatedly that our efforts to bolster our staff with able men from business and the professions, and from universities as well, are frustrated in whole or in part by our inability to offer salaries approaching those that can be obtained elsewhere.

The Federal Government can never expect to provide salaries for its top staff personnel fully equal to those paid for comparable responsibilities in private life. The administration's salary proposals would not accomplish this and, indeed, I do not believe they should. Such factors as devotion to public service, and enthusiasm for working on the most vital problems confronting the Nation, must always be a significant part of the attraction and rewards for Government service at those levels. Nevertheless, the discrepancies between salaries in private enterprise and in the Government cannot be allowed to become as great as they are today without doing serious and almost irreparable damage to the quality of our Federal staff. The administration's proposal will bring a reasonable and satisfactory solution to this problem within the limitations of sound budgetary and economic policies.

The President, in his own message to you of February 20, stressed that any adjustments in Federal salary scales at this time must recognize the urgent need to exert conscious restraint over the level of Federal expenditures and over wage and salary costs, in Government and private industry alike. The nature and timing of the reforms. proposed by the administration meet these criteria, so vital to all our efforts to spur growth at home, to maintain price stability, and to achieve a balance in our international accounts.