The Federal Government Accountants Association pursues public service goals, not self-servicing ends. For the association to recognize that discriminatory Federal salaries impair, indeed seriously impair, progress toward improved financial management in the Federal Government involves no breach in its long established professional status. The association has never in the past concerned itself with matters of salary as such, and certainly is not doing so now. Its endorsement of the Federal salary reform bill's principles of salary comparability reflects only its sincere conviction that adoption of this principle will bring immeasurably stronger and more effective management throughout the Federal Government and thus benefit the entire Nation.

The principle of comparability, equal pay for equal work, in Government and industry, proposed by the President, has been too long absent in Federal pay programs. In addition to the establishment of pay comparability, we wish to support those other desirable features of the proposed pay reform bill which would provide for an annual review of pay scales, flexibility of inhiring rates, the use of increased salary rates to recognize superior performance, and an increased differential between the supervisory and nonsupervisory levels.

I would like to conclude with the observation that the present high rate of turnover among Federal accountants is exceedingly wasteful and expensive, not only in terms of the loss of trained personnel, but more specifically in terms of the Federal Government's inability to effectively control and utilize the vast and growing financial resources which are adminstered by Federal agencies throughout the world. That morale in the career service remains generally high is more a measure of the unselfish devotion with which so many men and women of the career services serve their Government than it is a measure of the fairness with which their Government has dealt with them. For years the career services, especially in the middle and higher levels, have been discriminated against in terms of the salaries received by their counterparts in private life. This discrimination not only as a matter of common fairness but in the long-term national interest should not be allowed to continue.

Enactment of the Federal salary reform bill clearly is in the national interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions of Mr. Robbins?

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, because he and his members have a rather intimate knowledge of what goes on in these departments, suppose we accepted in toto your arguinents, is it also true, as the Secretary of Commerce pointed out as regards his Department, that we are overstaffed in many of our departments and that we could pay increased salaries and in large part make up the difference by reducing the work force?

Mr. ROBBINS. Mr. Congressman, I do not feel competent to address myself to whether there is overstaffing or not, nor do I think the association would.

Mr. CORBETT. Somebody has to along the line. You see, we have three factors at least to consider: The comparability of salaries, the total number of employees as regards the job to be done, and also the skill and efficiency along with other problems of recruitment, training, retention, and the like.

ww

If we are going to have comparability of salaries, that comparability ought to extend, it seems to me, to the workload, and it ought to extend to the fringe benefits, just to be fair about it. We as a committee have to determine these things. The gentleman has indicated he does not care or does not have the background to state whether there is overstaffing. How do the fringe benefits compare generally between Federal service and private employment?

Mr. ROBBINS. I think I would have to say, based on my experience in Government where I have contact with industry, that in fringe benefits the Federal employee is reasonably well treated in comparison. In answering your original question, we firmly believe that if we are able to retain the top talent in Government and do not continue to lose these people to industry, and are able to continue to bring new blood from the college campuses into Government, that the improvements we are making in techniques will make for a more efficient system and will bring with it, I believe, lower cost of operation.

Mr. CORBETT. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I am one of those who believe we need some salary adjustment. I also believe that the matter of security in a civil service job is an important factor. I think our fringe benefits on the average are perhaps a little better than we have in industry. So if we achieve a salary schedule that is not quite comparable, that is a little short, these other factors can make it up.

In trying to arrive at a fair answer, when we get testimony such as the Secretary of Commerce gave us, and we know it is true in some agencies and bureaus, but we do not know exactly which ones-and when they get before your Manpower Utilization Subcommittee, Mr. Gross, they are masters in showing they need all these people-this has been one of the factors that has been disturbing us.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CORBETT. Yes.

Mr. JOHANSEN. In view of the reference to Secretary Hodges' testimony, I would not want the record to fail to show the Secretary has done some revamping of his testimony, and at the time he gave the testimony he had a request for 2,229 additional employees in his own Department. I would not want what he said to stand unchallenged because he has backtracked on it.

Mr. CORBETT. When somebody disagrees with himself I take the position I have the right to accept whichever position I want to. Mr. JOHANSEN. I do not dispute that.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions of Mr. Robbins?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Robbins, is there anywhere in your statement the rate of turnover of accountants in the Federal Government?

Mr. ROBBINS. No, Mr. Gross. I would like to point out that the association has a limited staff and we have to depend on whatever statistics we can get informally, so we do not have the facilities to corral that information.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Robbins.

The next witness is Mr. R. D. Blakeslee, chairman, Legislative Committee, Patent Office Society.

Mr. Blakeslee.

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

Mr. BLAKESLEE. Mr. Chairman, may we put our statement in the record and refer briefly to it to save time?

The CHAIRMAN. You may do so. Your full statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

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.1 It was further shown that even examiners with many years of experience were leaving. What is the situation today?

The bar graph on the next page 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.

1 "How Low Federal Salaries Are Hurting Government." The graph on p. 655 shows that on Apr. 1, 1957, only 30 examiners remained out of 145 recruited in the years 1952, 1953, and 1954. (See pp. 643–666.)

Ibid., p. 653. "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? way, I'm paying my bills as they come."

This

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, one rated as "excellent" transferred to another Government agency, while 7 rated as "excellent" went into private practice, and one 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

2261-7761

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 following graph 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.