Mr. MURPHY. That is correct.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Thank you.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. You stress the fact you lost a lot of scientists at grades 13, 14, and 15. This bill proposes pay increases for those grades of approximately $1,000 a year. Would this solve your problem!

Mr. MURPHY. I do not think it would solve our problem. I do not thing it is possible to solve it completely. I think it would help substantially.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Do you have any knowledge of the recruitment programs that private industry have?

Mr. MURPHY. I have some knowledge of the recruitment programs they conduct at universities and colleges.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Then the question is, Does your department have a similar recruitment program, as extensive as private industry? Mr. MURPHY. I think Mr. Reid can respond to that far more adequately than I.

Let me say first, each of our major agencies conducts its own personnel operations largely, I do not know of any departmentwide, organized recruitment program. There are some instances referred to in this statement of some efforts of that kind. If you will permit, I would like for Mr. Reid to have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. REID. I was going to emphasize what Mr. Murphy has already said the fact that our agencies which employ professional and scientific workers each have developed a college relations program. These naturally stress relations with the land-grant colleges which are the greatest supplier, naturally, because we employ agricultural personnel. We find the greatest competition we meet is in the field of physical sciences and engineering and in the biological scientific categories, but increasingly in other areas such as business administration, and so forth.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. We are all familiar, are we not, with the intensive campaigns that are put on by various companies. To name a few, GE, Metropolitan Life, Aetna Life, the electronics concerns. You will see advertisements in almost any Sunday paper asking engineers to meet Mr. So-and-So at a certain time. Should not our Government agencies have the same interest and endeavor as private industry in order to meet this competition?

Mr. REID. We do a certain amount of this.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. A certain amount, but not all out. That is the point I make.

Mr. REID. By the same token, this kind of competition can be a very costly thing in itself.

In terms of the differential in salary rates, we would have a much. greater obstacle to overcome, even if we went out and put a lot of money into advertising. We do put some into advertising.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. A former witness testified we could never hope to complete, salary wise, with private industry. Do you agree with that? Mr. MURPHY. That, I think, is true, but we can come nearer, I think, to meeting the competition of private industry. I think it is true in these top professional grades. I do not think you can ever compete dollar for dollar across the board with private industry if you do

84357-62-pt. 1-17

not find people who will give some considerable weight to the desirability of being in public service and staying in public service.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. And under conditions they could not obtain in private industry. There is no security of jobs in private industry comparable with the Government?

Mr. MURPHY. Usually not as much, I think.

I would suppose, on the average, the fringe benefits in private industry are not as valuable as those in the Government.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Plus the fact we must credit many individuals with the desire to serve their country.

Mr. MURPHY. That, I think, is a very important factor, and necessarily it must continue to be. I do think that some measure of greater comparability is very desirable, and that you should not ask people to sacrifice too much of the advantage they can get in private industry. You should make it possible for these people to live in relative comfort and raise and educate their children. We found this is a particular problem with a good many of our fairly high level employees they have children growing up, and they have several that need to go to college at one time. Occasionally, we lose a man because of the financial pressure that comes from this kind of situation. Mr. WALLHAUSER. I am sure you do occasionally. This increase that is proposed in this bill is not going to solve the question of sending kids to college, nor is it going to make you able to retain the very capable men you are losing to $30,000-a-year jobs.

Mr. MURPHY. We believe it will help substantially.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. In projecting your personnel requirements for the future, do you anticipate they will continue to rise at the same rate as they have in the past 10 years?

Mr. MURPHY. We do anticipate they will continue to rise on perhaps a somewhat less steep incline, but not markedly different.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. In other words, the increase you are anticipating in fiscal year 1963 and beyond will be similar to that which you experienced in the past 5 years?

Mr. MURPHY. Will be on the same order of magnitude-yes. Mr. ROUSSELOT. That is one of your main functions, to determine this?

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir; I would not say that. This is determined by the needs of the various agencies within the Department. The work of the Department is broken down among about 15 different agencies and about 10 of them we call major agencies, each with their own budget and personnel office, each of them prepares and presents to the Secertary's Office estimates of expenditures and projections as to personnel requirements, and we undertake to review these estimates. Mr. ROUSSELOT. You have the responsibility of reviewing to see they are actually needed?

Mr. MURPHY. I am chairman of what we call the Budget Review Committee, which has the function of reviewing these estimates. Mr. ROUSSELOT. You review them to see if they are needed? Mr. MURPHY. Correct.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. And the increase will continue at the same rate of increase for the last 5 or 10 years?

Mr. MURPHY. I would say in the general range; yes, sir.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. This is in view of the fact that the number of farms are decreasing. You still think personnel will increase. What will be the major reason for this continual increase in personnel?

Mr. MURPHY. This will relate primarily to activities that are not directly related to farms and farming. The agency we would expect to require the largest increase in personnel is the Forest Service, which has jurisdiction over the national forests, and this increase in personnel would be in connection with the management of the national forests.

Perhaps the next largest increase would be in the Agricultural Research Service, which administers a number of consumer programs particularly the meat inspection program, where there will be a substantial increase, or there is anticipated a substantial increase in the number of inspectors required to inspect meat in processing plants. The Agricultural Marketing Service performs a number of somewhat similar functions in connection with marketing, and it is to be expected the volume of this work will increase as the population grows and there will need to be a corresponding increase in the people who administer this type of program.

We do anticipate some increase in the staff of the Soil Conservation Service.

We expect a stepping up of its small watershed programs where they help to develop and execute plans for the conservation of water resources near the head of the streams.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. In other words, many of these activities are sort of far afield from the original intention of the Agriculture Department?

Mr. MURPHY. I think that is true.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You have branched out into new fields that you did not originally anticipate?

Mr. MURPHY. The Department of Agriculture has come to perform a great many functions which we feel are as much, or more, in the interest of consumers and the population generally than in the interest of the farmers in particular.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Has the demand in the fields you have been discussing been generated from the consumers themselves, or has it actually been self-generated?

Mr. MURPHY. I expect it has been generated from a good many

sources.

Relatively little, I expect, has been generated within the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Has it been generated by Congress?

Mr. MORRISON. I can answer that. I can give a specific example. You seem to dwell on the consumer. The various lumber companies and the various paper manufacturers want to produce better lumber at a lower price and make better packaging and paper at a lower price. As a result, they have been insisting from time to time that they desire more research done by the Department of Agriculture. In my own State there are several large paper companies and one does a considerable business on the west coast, the Crown Zellerbach Co. They, along with other manufacturers, have asked me and other Members of Congress, to request the Department of Agriculture to establish a Forestry Research Center at Alexandria, La.

I think this is an outstanding example of what you are discussing. The Department was not uncooperative about it and they did not seek us; we sought them.

For the consumer and the manufacturer, we at the congressional level asked the Department to get this center in Alexandria into operation. I believe they were most cooperative.

When this forestry center is established in Alexandria, I think it will provide a very needed and essential service. I think it will give employment to many people. I think it will pay for itself many times in improving our forestry operations, devise more uses for lumber, and in hundreds of ways help the consumer, as far as homebuilding and other types of building uses are concerned. It will further help the consumer, I think, as far as paper products are concerned, which are being used more and more widely in our economy in our everyday life.

I am sure my colleague from California is well aware of the development of the supermarket. Today almost everything is packaged in paper containers.

The Department of Agriculture, in my humble observation and opinion, has been very cooperative with the requests and needs of our people as consumers and from the manufacturers' standpoint and from the congressional viewpoint.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. In the specific instance you mention, do the manufacturers pay for the research, or the general taxpayers?

Mr. MORRISON. The Department of Agriculture pays for it, and the money comes from the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. From the general taxpayers?

Mr. MORRISON. I know of no better way the taxpayers' dollar can be spent.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. That is in your judgment.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Secretary, we certainly appreciate your appearing before the committee and we thank you for your excellent contribution and for your answering our questions and giving us an opportunity to secure the views of one of the most important departments of our Government.

Mr. MURPHY. We want to thank the committee for an opportunity to appear.

Mr. MORRISON. The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning, May 16, at 10 a.m., when the committee will receive testimony from Hon. John S. Gleason, Jr., Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, and Hon. Roger Jones, Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene Wednesday, May 16, 1962, at 10 a.m.)

REVISION OF MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY SALARY

SYSTEMS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 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.

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 most distinguished officials of the executive branch of our Government, Hon. Roger W. Jones, Deputy Under Secretary for Administration and Hon. John S. Gleason, Jr., Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.

We shall hear first from the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration, Mr. Jones.

Will you proceed, sir?

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER W. JONES, DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I say at the beginning that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to come back to a committee before which I have appeared in other capacities in the past, and for which I have the deepest respect and affection.

Mr. MORRISON. We are glad to have you.

Mr. JONES. It seems good to be back here.
Mr. MORRISON. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, my responsibility this morning is to speak on behalf of the Department of State and the other agencies engaged in foreign affairs with respect to our attitudes on H.R. 10480. If I may, sir, I would like to read a relatively short statement and then I would like to add for the record several other semistatistical matters that may be of some concern and interest to the committee. Mr. MORRISON. You may proceed and, without objection, whatever you desire to file, it shall be inserted in the record.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you this morning to explain the position of the Department of State on the President's pay reform proposals as contained in H.R. 10480. The Department