GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1964

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Release Decision: 
RIPPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
355
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
May 2, 2005
Sequence Number: 
1
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
OPEN
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9.pdf59.19 MB
Body: 
15242 the United Nations Charter. If it were not so tragic, it would be amusing, when one considers the answer he has given to the proposal to go to a 14-nation con- ference, as recommended by the Presi- dent of France. Mr. de Gaulle. What are we afraid of? No one is suggesting that while we are at that 14-nation Confer- ence we should abandon southeast Asia. No one is suggesting that while the Se- curity Council and, if necessary. the General Assembly consider the United Nations jurisdiction, we remove ourselves frcm southeast Asia, although I wish we would desist from our warmaking in southeast Asia and start a policy of peacekeeping. I would, as I have said so many times. while the matter is before a 14-nation Conference, as recommended by De Gaulle. or before the Security Council or before the General Assembly, call upon our alleged?and I underline the word "alleged"?SEATO allies to join us with a sufficient body of men to patrol the area, to keep the adversaries separate. and to stop the killing and warmaking until the procedures of the United Na- tions can be brought to work upon the threat to the peace of Asia and, poten- tially, the peace of the world. The position taken by Henry Cabot Lodge cannot be reconciled to any de- cree with the clear international obliga- tions of the United States under the United Nations Charter. I did not expect that the stature of the President of France for peacekeeping would rise above the stature of the Pres- ident of the United States; but at this bour, that is exactly what is happening. The President of France is becoming recognized in many areas of the world as more determined and dedicated to the cause of peace than the President of the United States, because the President of France is calling for negotiation. The President of -France is calling for the conference table. The President of France is calling for the application of ihe rule of law to the threat of peace in Asia The President of the United States is rattling the saber and telling the world that we are willing to risk war with Red China unless Asia accepts American policy in southeast Asia. I cannot understand why my Govern- ment cannot see, before it is too late. that that kind of warmaking policy on the part of the United States spells trouble. Let me make it clear. as I close, that there is no question that we are joined In our outlawry by South Vietnam, by North Vietnam, by the Pathet Lao Communists in Laos, and by Red China. Does that justify our outlawry? Does that justify the policy of expediency ap- plied to international affairs which best describes American policy tonight in Asia? Does the end-justifies-the-means principle square with American precepts of foreign policy? Since when do two wrongs make a right? Never before has that been our pol- icy. I pray again th.it my country will see the horrendous mistake it is making in Asia as a matter of policy, before it is too late. Approved For RialWiribS?NneLAA-RDP66BO ' _RECORD ? SENATE July 1 : D403R0 I close by saying, for the benent or CitiNgft91%ii-2)F ADDITIONAL those who do not like my speeches and for the benefit of such journalists as Mr. Freedman, "You had better check it with the American people." I am satisfied that millions of fellow Americans. as they begin to understand the issue at stake in southeast Asia, will support my position. I can now say, along with the Senator from Alaska, that my mail is running better than 100 to 1 in support of my position. My mail is coming in from coast to coast. as Senators will see some samples placed in the CONURESSIONAI. RECORD from time to time. I placed a large quantity in the RECORD today. It is coming from the leaders of many com- munities in this country. I wish to state to President Johnson that I am satisfied that the American people do not approve of America's war- making policy in Asia. and that the American people wish the President of the United States to join with the Presi- dent of France and other advocates of negotiation, that we go to the conference table and seek to apply the rule of law to the crisis which exists In Asia. I say most respectfully to my Presi- dent, whom I shall continue to support on most issues, that I oppose him on this issue only because I owe a greater trust to my country than I owe to him. Mr. President, I yield the floor, APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc- GOVERN in the chair). The Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, an- nounces the appointment as members on the part of the Senate of the National Commission on Food Marketing, created by Senate Joint Resolution 71. the fol- lowing Senators, namely, the Senator from Washington (Mr. Msceesoril. the Senator from Wyoming ( Mr. WOW. the Senator from Michigan iMr. }Wel. the Senator trom Kentucky (Mr. Moe- TON I, and the Senator from Nebraska ( Mr. HRUSKA I. COMMIT 1 tE MEETING DURING SENATE SESSION TOMORROW Mr. HART. ? Mr. President. the dis- tinguished Senator from Nebraska I Mr. HRUSKA1 is in the Chamber: and we have discussea the problem presented to the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monop- oly of the Judiciary Committee in meet- ing tomorrow, in view ot the lime set for the beginning of the session of the Senate. We have cleared this with those in- volved, and I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee be permitted to tv during the session of the Senate 1,011101TONV. The PRESIDING OFFIer?R. Is there objection? Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, not only is there no objection, but I also con- cur in the request of the Senator from Michigan and wish to confirm that there has been clearance on this matter with the minority leader. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. ROUTINE BUSINESS By unanimous consent, the following additional routine business was trans- acted; MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE? ENROLLED 13rf SIGNED A message from the House of Repre- sentatives. by Mr. Bartlett. one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the Acting President pro tern- pore: S. a. An art to authorize the Housing and Home Finance Administrator to provide addi- tional assistance for the development of comprehensive and coordinated mass trans- portation systems. both public and private. In metropolitan and other urban areas, and for other purposes: and H.R. 10433. An act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and re- lated agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1965. and for other purposes. ADDITIONAL BILL INTRODUCED Mr. HART by unanimous consent. in- troduced a bill (S. 2972) for the relief of Dr. David J. Sencer, U.S. Public Health Service, which was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. ADJusTmEarr OF-RATES OF BASIC COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OF- FICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?AMEND- MENTS Mr. MORSE submitted two amend- ments (Nos. 1089 and 1090), intended to be proposed by him, to the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust, the rates of basic com- pensation of certain officers and em- ployees in the Federal Government, anc for other purposes, which were orderer to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. LAUSCHE submitted an amend- ment (No. 1091) . Intended to be proposec by him, to House bill 11049, supra, whizl was ordered to lie on the table and t( be printed. Mr. ICEATING for himself and Mr JAvrrs) submitted an amendment iNo 1092), intended to be proposed by them jointly. to House bill 11049, supra, whicl was ordered to he on the table and to la, printed. Mr. ELLENDER submitted amend ment +No. 1093), intended to be pro posed by him, to House bill 11049, suprr which was ordered to lie on the table ant to be printed. AMENDMENT OF INTERNAL REV ENITE CODE OF 1954. TO IMPOS: A TAX ON ACQUISITIONS OF CM? TAIN FOREIGN SECURITIES- AMENDMENTS sagorosinurr NO. loos Mr. JAVITS submitted an amendmen In the nature of a substitute, intended t be proposed by him, to the bill (H..1 8000) to amend the Internal Review. Code of 1954 to impose a tax on acqu ppr oveCI r-or Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 July 23, /964 Approved F5 of the bill lends adequate protection to civilian employees and eliminates certain inequities in the hiring of retired mili- tary persons. The Civil Service Cominissipn advises that section 206 is unnecessir y,restric- tive and strongly endorses the elimina- tion of this provision. Senate amendment No. 2 is a technical conforming ?amendment required by the eliminatiqn pt4ealpti 205. It would re- number present Section 203 to section 205. Senate amenOnent No. 3 adds a new section 206. winch would place certain ceilings-. on the amount of combined mili- tary retired:pax and civilian compensa- tion to be1.,:by retired military personnel' employe in a Federal, civilian position. The section Would prescribe two ceil- ings: - , First. In cases where the military re- tiree is employed in a civilian office with compensation 'determined under the Classification Act 4,1949,, the combined military retired pay _and civilian pom- pensatipn could not e_xceeccilie:fop rate of ?Ad Of no, as soneneleP. Second, 1/1., eases Where the civilian co/ripe/1841On, is not, determined under the Class/Dealt:M., .ACt of 1949, the com- bined maximuM rate ?OP_Uld?. 110,k,eXceetl. the rate of compen_Sat19.n.reMYPPLIV? the head of the denartirient or agency, The peiling_31.Wler the. Areit /7.1-,/le meas- ured Iv; the top_rite-?f the 014ssification Act would apply to retired members of any Regular _component, but the ceiling Under the se-son4 rule,Woilel,aPply to any retired Member pt iy or the uniformed services, ? Mr. GROSS. , Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HENDEIISON;, I ani-haPPY to yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr, GROSS ? he written _ _ 'in an attempt to eliminate the so-called buddy system still retained in the bill IS/I.r._,ZIENDg440.M. It itewtAy is. The gentleman well knows of my long interest_ in tbis?, I lave ,gene into this carefully. There have been no Changes in this section as passed by the House. Mr. GROSS. .?M ar,sT al?) con- cerned,:this is one of the most Important provisions-of-the biltandifit Terrtaim in it; I have no further questions concern- ing the conference report. Mr. ligNE*1:00, ' N, appreciate the gentleman's_ Interest., - . - Mr. BECKWOPTH. 1V4 Speaker will the gentleman yield? . Mr. HENDERSON,. 4i happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas. _ Mr. BECKWOldlt ttelieVe the so- called bUddY system should be elimi- nated. Just Aester aY. ,741-Ing man came toMy 6' e Whp,wPric,,s? torsi-ie. of the departments of the Gove,rnment. Ie told me that for scycrfa, weelp now a given agency' NIS been looking for a grade 13 Man. It Was not announced that the officials,of the department were looking for the man. As soon as they found him, they then announced that the position was open, and the an- ?alfingi2c909,5/11i8ItebR_DPAWNO3R000500050001-9 nouncement closes quickly. That means that, to all intents and purposes, most people who might be qualified for the position are denied the opportunity of even knowing about the vacancy. This is wrong. I also want to add this. I have intro- duced as of December 10, 1963, H.R. 9407 a bill that would if it should become law require reasonable notice on all examina- tions, where practical, and then genuine written examinations, where practical. I feel that this bill will be opposed, because selfish bureaucrats do not want that kind of thing. There are some people in our Government and outside our Government who believe the bill would be good legislation. The summer jobs program for students evidences some great injustices. We passed twice a bill here to bring about more fairness. There has been so much opposition to the legislation that the legislation has received little consideration in the other body. I say to you, though, that if we mean business when we say that we want effective and able Federal employees, we ought to go the full length in making it known that jobs are available and give true, worthwhile competitive examina- tions instead of what is known as com- plying with civil service standards, which are quite different to a true written competitive examination. Mr. HENDERSON. The gentleman from Texas is to be commended for his longtime interest in this field. He well knows the provisions of this bill are a vast improvement over what he have had. As the gentleman from Iowa indi- cated, the provisions of this bill will go a long way toward eliminating the buddy system, as we refer to it. In the employ- ment of retired former military person- nel, this is a vast step forward in the improvement of the civil service em- ployment procedures. ? Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with the further explanation of the amendments of the Senate. The Civil Service Commission strongly objects to this amendment. It would cause inequities and incon- sistencies in the cases of those few re- tired members whose combined military retired pay and civilian compensation would be affected by these ceilings. A retired regular member employed in the Department of Defense in a GS-18 Classification Act scientific position would have a salary reduced by the total amount of his retired pay; however, if he were employed to do exactly the same kind of work by the same agency under Public Law 313 which authorizes com- pensation to be fixed outside the Classifi- cation Act, the reduction in his salary would be insignificant, if any, because he could be paid as much as the Secretary of Defense?up to $35,000 under the new salary bill as passed by the Senate, H.R. 11049. _ If the same individual were a Retired Reserve member, he would have no re- duction in salary in the GS-18 position, but he could be subject to a reduction if he were employed under Public Law 313. The provisions of section 206 would encourage all kinds of artificial,arrange- ments to avoid the adverse maximum of the limits on particular individuals and groups, as indicated above. Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 relate to em- ployment in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol. They are designed to continue the present employment policy of pro- hibiting any employee of those offices from receiving salary for more than one civilian office if the aggregate amount of basic compensation from such offices exceeds the sum of $2,000 per annum. Amendment No. 8 provides that the limitation on dual compensation for more than one civilian office under sec- tion 301 of the bill shall not apply to per- sons employed under Public Law 87-82, relating to employees of the Architect of the Capitol in the Senate restaurants, or to employees employed under section 208 of Public Law 812 of the 76th Congress, relating to employees of the Architect of the Capitol in the House of Representa- tives restaurant. The present law referred to in amend- ment No. 9 (2 U.S. C. 66a) prohibits dual compensation if one of the positions is in the U.S. Senate; however, one person may be employed in more than one part- time position in the House of Representa- tives if the basic compensation does not exceed $2,000 per annum. Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 will retain the present dual employment rules, applica- ble to the employees of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Archi- tect of the Capitol. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: Abbitt Alger Ashmore Avery Baring Bass Bennett, Mich. Blatnik Bolling Brock Buckley Celler Chelf Davis, Tenn. Diggs Dingell Eying Fine Flynt Gibbons Gill Gray [Roll No. 1881 Griffiths Hansen Harris Harvey, Mich. Healey Hebert Hoffman Holifleld Hull Jones, Ala. Kee Kilburn Kilgore Knox Laird Lankford Lipscomb Long, La, Martin, Mass, Miller, N.Y. Moore Moorhead Morrison Morton Pilcher Pool Powell Pucinski Purcell Quie Randall Roberts, Ala. Roybal Ryan, Mich. Senner Skubitz Thomas Thompson, La. Toll Wallhauser Wickersham Wilson, Bob The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 369 Members have answered to their names, 'a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. d For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 ? pprovecl For Release 2005105/48 : CIAARDP66B00403liq9,0500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE tlIMPR MESSAGE FR.,OM THE SENATE further message from the Senate ' by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, an- nounced:that the Senate had passed a joint resolution of the following title, In which the concurrence of the House Is requested: Si'. Hes. 184. Iola resolution for the coMmembra,tion of the, Honorable Herbert Hoover's $0tb, birthday, August 10, 1964. VMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS IN MORE THAN ONE POSITION AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT OF _RE- TIRE'? MEMBERS OF THE UNI- FORMED SERVICES ? The SPEAKER, The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina Mfr. HanasszoNl. The motion was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laidqn4h table. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LARY nEVOR/V1 ACT OF 1964 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill 11049) to adjust the rates of bask Compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other pur- poses, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, re- serving the right to object, this is the Pay bill which was passed by this body and has now been passed by the other body. I hope the Members of the House real- ize that In the version of the other body there is a provision which takes a direct slap at the members of the Supreme Court of the United States. This version ' would limit the raise of Supreme Court members to $2,500 instead of $7,500. I Want to go on record as saying that no matter how anyone may feel about the actions of the Supreme Court in various Instances, this is highly inappropriate. It certainly would be a severe blow to our whole system of government. We should, if we so desire, have the courage to take action 011 the basis of whatever we inight want to do to review their decisions ,and take positive legislative - action to do so. Certainly it is picayune, small, and unseemly to act as the other body proposes. I hope that the cOnferees on our side, on the part of, the House, will insist that the compensation of justices of the Su- preme Court be at the level at which pasSed by the House. July 23 FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take, from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 10222) to strengthen the agricultural economy; to help to achieve a fuller and more effec- tive use of food abundances; to provide for improved levels of nutrition among economically needy households through a cooperative Federal-State program of food assistance to be operated through normal channels of trade; and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ments, as follows: Page 2, line 5, strike out "economically needy" and insert: "low-income". Page 2, lines 13 and 14, strike out "in eco- omic need" and insert: "with low incomes". Page 2, line 20, strike out all after "(b)" clown to and including line 25 and insert: "The term 'food' means any food or food product for human consumption except al- coholic beverages, tobacco, those foods which are identified on the package as being im- ported, and meat and meat products which are imported." Page 4, after line 20, insert: "(b) In areas where a food stamp program is in effect, there shall be no distribution of federally owner foods to households under the authority of any other law except during emergency situations caused by a national or other disaster as determined by the Sec- retary.". Page 4, line 21, strike out "(b)" and insert ci Page 5, strike out lines 4 to 16, inchteive, and insert: "Sze. 5. (a) Participation in the food stamp program shall be limited to those households whose income is determined to be a substantial limiting factor in the at- tainment of a nutritionally adequate diet." "(b) In complying with the limitation on participation set forth in subsection (a) above, each State agency shall establish standards to determine the eligibility of ap- plicant households. Such standards shall Include maximum income limitations con- sistent with the income standards used by the State agency in administration of its federally aided public assistance programs. Such standards also shall place a limitation on the resources to be allowed eligible households. The standards of eligibility to be used by each State for the food stamp program shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary." Page 6, line 17, after "a" insert "low-cost". Page 11, line 8, after "required." insert "In approving the participation of the subdi- visions requested by each State in its plan of operation, the Secretary shall provide for an equitable and orderly expansion among the several States in accordance with their relative need and readiness to meet their requested effective dates of participation." Page 11, after line 19, insert: "(g) If the Secretary determines that there has been gross negligence or fraud on the part of the State agency in the certification of applicant households, the State shall upon request of the Secretary deposit into the The SPEAKER. Is there objection to separate account authorized by section 7 of the request of the gentleman from Ten- this Act, a sum equal to the amount by which , IleSSee? ns , the value of any coupons issued as a result , of such negligence or fraud exceeds the Mr. za, Mr, Speaker, I object. amount that was charged for such coupons - The SPEAKER. ,Objection is heart" under section 7(b) of this Act." Page 17, lines 11 and 12, strike out "not in excess of $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964;". Page 17, line 16, after "1967" insert "; and not In excess of such sum as may hereafter be authorized by Congress for any subse- quent fiscal year". Page 18, line 2, after "section." insert "If in any fiscal year the Secretary finds that the requirements of participating States will exceed the limitation set forth herein, the Secretary shall direct State agencies to reduce the amount of such coupons to be issued to participating households to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions of this subsection." Amend the title so as to read: "An act to strengthen the agricultural economy; to help to achieve a fuller and more effective use of food abundances; to provide for im- proved levels of nutrition among low-income households through a cooperative Federal- State program of food assistance to be oper- ated through normal channels of trade; and for other purposes." The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? Mr. HOEVEN. Mr: Speaker, reserv- ing the right to object, I assume the gentleman from North Carolina wi11- ad- vise the House as to the nature and the import of the Senate amendments. Mr. COOLEY. I might say to my friend that the only one that is of great Importance is what is known as the Mil- ler amendment dealing with imported meats. I had anticipated that some question would be propounded concern- ing that, and I would like to place this matter before the House now. The language in the bill clearly indi- cates that we do not intend for food stamps to be used to buy imported meat. We definitely do not want to do anything which would adversely affect the live- stock industry of this country. Not even by legislative history do we want to indicate that food stamps could not be used to buy meat products pro- duced domestically, but certainly we do not intend to require retailers to main- tain a private reporting service to warn them that they may be allowing custom- ers to use food stamps to buy imported beef which may be commingled with do- mestic meats in processed foods. I un- derstand that some foreign meats are used in processed foods. A recent report of the Tariff Commission indicates that a small amount of imported meat is sometimes used in frankfurters, bologna, luncheon meat, and canned products, but that on an average 80 percent of the meat used in these food articles is Ameri- can-produced meat. The definition "food" in this legisla- tion would require to the extent practi- cal that if the retailer knew he was offer- ing imported meat for sale, he could not sell such meat for food coupons. He could sell no food product that is labeled as imported on the package for food stamps. He could not, for example, sell any meat product that is identified as being imported when he bought it?such as carcass beef or frozen block beef?no matter whether he ground it for ham- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 House of Represent THURSDAY, JULY 23, 19k,\ The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Rev. William C. Howland, Jr., pastor, the First Christian Church, Long- view, Tex., offered the following prayer: Almighty God, grant this prayer may be more than mere fulfillment of ex- pected ritual. In spirit and truth enable us to acknowledge that Thou alone art Creator, Sustainer, and Lord of life. As Thou hast brought us to this moment by Thy providence, strengthen us with Thy power, making us glad with Thy presence. We beseech Thy blessing on those who serve here, and the people and the coun- try whom they seek to serve. Grant them ability equal to their opportunity, wisdom equal to their responsibility, and courage equal to their awesome task. Through their labors give birth to in- sights which employed, can lead to full realization of good will among all men and peace among all Nations. In Christ's name, we pray. Amen. THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate by Mr. Ar- rington, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed without amend- ment bills of the .House of the following titles: H.R. 8313. An act to repeal the District of Columbia Credit Unions Act, to convert cred- it unions incorporated under the provisions of the act to Federal credit unions, and for other purposes; HM. 9833. An act granting a renewal of patent numbered D-162,975, relating to a medal of the American Legion; and H.R. 9834. An act granting a renewal of patent numbered D-161,955, relating to a plaque of the American Legion. The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to a bill of the Senate of the fol- lowing title: 5.944. An act to provide for the presenta- tion by the United States to the people of Mexico of a monument commemorating the independence of Mexico, and for other pur- poses. The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the com- mittee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amend- ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 10300) entitled "An act to authorize cer- tain construction at military installa- tions, and for other purposes." 16260 EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS IN MORE THAN ONE POSITION AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT OF RE- TIRED MEMBERS OF THE UNI- FORMED SERVICES Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.'ALI) , to simplify, modernize, and consolidate the laws relating to the employment of ci- vilians in more than one position and the laws concerning the civilian employment of retired members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes, with amendments of the Senate thereto, and consider the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ments, as follows: Page 12, strike out lines 6 to 21, inclusive. Page 12, line 22, strike out "206'' and in- sert "205". Page 12, after line 25, insert: "SEC. 206. Notwithstanding any other pro- vision of law, no retired member of any reg- ular component of the uniformed services who holds any civilian office the compensa- tion for which is determined in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, shall receive salary for the per- formance of the duties of such civilian office at a rate which combined with the rate of retired or retirement pay received by him is in excess of the maximum rate authorized by such Classification Act of 1949, as amended; and no retired member of any of the uni- formed services who holds any civilian office the compensation for which is not deter- mined in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, shall receive salary for the performance of the duties of such civilian office at a rate which combined with the rate of retired or retirement pay received by him is in excess of the rate of salary re- ceived by the head of the department or agency by which he is employed." Page 13, strike out all after line 17 over to and including line 2 on page 14 and insert: "(c) Unless otherwise authorized by law, no money appropriated by any Act shall be available for payment to any person of salary from more than one civilian office if the aggregate amount of the basic compensation from such offices exceeds the sum of $2,000 per annum, and if (1) one of such salaries is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives or (2) one of such offices is under the Office of the Architect of the Capitol." Page 14, after line 17, insert: "(5) compensation received by any person holding an office or position the compensa- tion for which is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives or any office or position un- der the Architect of the Capitol:" Page 14, line 18, strike out "(5)" and in- sert "(8)". Page 14, line 21, strike out "(6)" and in- sert "(7)". Page 16, after line 20, insert: "(f) This title shall not be applicable to persons employed under the Joint resolution approved July 6, 1961 (75 Stat. 199; Public Law 87-82), or under section 208 of the First Supplemental Civil Functions Appropriation Act, 1941 (54 Stat. 1056; Public Law 812, '76th Congress)." Page 34, after line 3, insert: '(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to repeal or modify the provi- sions of the last paragraph under the head- ing 'Administrative Provisions' in the appro- priations for the Senate contained in the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1957 (70 Stat. 360; 2 U.S.C. 66a)." The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I assume that the gentleman from North Carolina will take a few minutes, at least, to explain what transpired in conference. Mr. HENDERSON. I shall be glad to do so. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I of- fer a motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. HENDERSON moves to concur in Sen- ate amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and disagree to amendment No. 3. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, Sen- ate amendment No. 1 to HR. 7381 eliminates section 205 which would re- quire that before a retired member of any of the uniformed services may be ap- pointed to a civilian office in the com- petitive civil service of any agency in the executive branch there must be public notice that a vacancy exists and that an assembled examination, where prac- ticable open to all persons, is to be giv- en. The vacancy could be filled only from among those qualified persons who successfully complete such examination. The provision would require public notice, a waiting period, and open com- petitive examinations in order to fill any vacancy in the competitive civil service if a retired member of the Armed Forces is a candidate for the position. An agency could never positively determine whether a retired member would be interested in applying for such a position; con- sequently, the entire examining and ap- pointing procedures of the Civil Service Commission would have to be revised in order to comply with the requirements of this section. It is felt that section 204 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 16259 MASSACHUSETTS Paul H. Benoit, Southbridge, Mass., in place of J. H. LeClair, retired. MICHIGAN James B. Koyne, Bellaire, Mich., in place of S. F. Blake, retired. Richard K. Smarter, Lakeview, Mich., In place of M. C. Woodard. resigned. John 0. Boynton, Saint Ignace. Mich., in place of 0. C. Boynton, Jr., retired. MINNESOTA Lawrence J. Mahan. Brandon, Minn.. in place of W. H. 'loving. retired. Violet L. Howard, Lyle, Minn., In place of 0. J. Mortensen, declined. MISSOURI James G. Curry, Jr., Bucklin, Mo., in place of J. 0. Finney, deceased. Harold F. Taylor, Jonesburg. Mo., In place of C. J. Jones, retired. MONTANA Eugene Kennedy, Manhattan. Mont., in place of J. P. Waters, retired. Sarah M. Riley, West Yellowstone, Mont., in place of A. E. Hansen, retired. NEW JERSEY Jeanne L. Tamplin, Hewitt, N.J., in place of M. F. Sando, retired. No. 14l-).9 William L. Krieger, Maplewood, N.J., In place of 0. V. Mclia.ny, resigned, NEW YORX Robert K. Baker, Argyle. N.Y., in place of A. C. Hall, retired. Joseph F. CarrIga.n, East Rockaway, N.Y.. In place of F. B. Crowley, retired. Archie C. Ralmondi, Glasco, N.Y., in place of Charles Riccardi, deceased. Barbara A. Alkinburgh, Neiliston, N.Y., In place of J. W. Van Alstine. retired. OKLAHOMA Cora H. Gossmann. Arapaho. Okla., in place of E. E. Wiley. retired. Carl B. Grime45, Elmer. Okla., in place of Velma McKinzie, retired. rENN5YLVAIVIA Joseph J. Morris. Bryn Mawr, Pa.. In place of M. C. Barone, transferred. Raymond G. Mathews, Doylestown, Pa., in place of F. A. Fonash, retired. William H. Couch. Greenville. Pa., In place of J. W. Reznor. retired. Harvey A. Baddorf. Halifax, Pa., in place of R. R. Kinsinger. retired. Alice M. Bustin. Milan, Pa., in place of A. G. Flood, retired. Robert P. DeLotto, New Kensington, Pa., In place of A. G. Sullivan, retired. Irving E. Rath, Pillow, Pa., in place of C. M. Koppenhaver, r,sIgned. Charles W. Plunkett. Turtlepoint. Pa., hit place of G. L. Carlson, retired. SOUTH CAROLINA Edwin L. Plaits, Ridge Spring, S.C., in place of B. D. Boatwright, retired. Warren L. Walkup, Timmonsville, S.C., in place of S. F. Harper, retired. TENNESSEE William B. Milstead, Hornsby, Tenn., in place of H. B. Milstead, retired. James H. Miller, Surgoinsville, Tenn., in place of E. W. Marshall. retired. TEXAS Cloyce W. Floyd. Dawson, Tex., in place 0:! C. D. Barry, retired. Minna L. Squires, Eustace, Tex., in place of W. H. Wheeler, deceased. Eunice B. Dayton, London, Tex., In place of Jessie Robinson, retired. John M. Tidwell, Roanoke. Tex., in place of G. R. Jones, transferred. Bernard G. Scrogin, Wallis, Tex., in place of A. H. Brandt, deceased. VERMONT Mary J. Reagan, Moretown, Vt., in place of M. B. Ward, retired. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 July 23, 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 16261 of the bill lends adequate protection to civilian employees and eliminates certain inequities in the hiring of retired mili- tary persons. The Civil Service Commission advises that section 205 is unnecessarily restric- tive and strongly endorses the elimina- tion of this provision. Senate amendment No. 2 is a technical conforming amendment required by the elimination of section 205. It would re- number present section 203 to section 205. Senate amendment No. 3 adds a new section 206 which would place certain ceilings on the amount of combined mili- tary retired pay and civilian compensa- tion to be received by retired military personnel employed in a Federal civilian position. The section would prescribe two ceil- ings: First. In cases where the military re- tiree is employed in a civilian office with compensation determined under the Classification Act of 1949, the combined military retired pay and civilian com- pensation could not exceed the top rate of the Classification Act of 1949. as amended. Second. In cases where the civilian compensation is not determined under the Classification Act of 1949, the com- bined maximum rate could not exceed the rate of compensation received by the head of the department or agency. The ceiling under the first rule meas- ured by the top rate of the Classification Act would apply to retired members of any Regular component, but the ceiling under the second rule would apply to any retired member of any of the uniformed services. Mr: GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HENDERSON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Is the provision written in an attempt to eliminate the so-called buddy system still retained in the bill Mr. HENDERSON. It definitely is. The gentleman well knows of my long interest in this. I have gone into this carefully. There have been no changes in this section as passed by the House. Mr. GROSS. As far as I am con- cerned, this is one of the most important provisions of the bill and if it remains in it, I have no further questions concern- ing the conference report. Mr. HENDERSON. I appreciate the gentleman's interest. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HENDERSON. I am happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas. Mr. BECKWORTH. I believe the so- called buddy system should be elimi- nated. Just yesterday a young man came to my office who works for one of the departments of the Government. He told me that for several weeks now a given agency has been looking for a grade 13 man. It was not announced that the officials of the department were looking for the man. As soon as they found him, they then announced that the position was open, and the an- nouncement closes quickly. That means that, to all intents and purposes, most people who might be qualified for the position are denied the opportunity of even knowing about the vacancy. This is wrong. I also want to add this. I have intro- duced as of December 10, 1963, H.R. 9407 a bill that would if it should become law require reasonable notice on all examina- tions, where practical, and then genuine written examinations, where practical. I feel that this bill will be opposed, because selfish bureaucrats do not want that kind of thing. There are some people in our Government and outside our Government who believe the bill would be good legislation. The summer jobs program for students evidences some great injustices. We passed twice a bill hem to bring about more fairness. There has been so much opposition to the legislation that the legislation has received little consideration in the other body. I say to you, though, that if we mean business when we say that we want effective and able Federal employees, we ought to go the full length in making it known that jobs are available and give true, worthwhile competitive examina- tions instead of what is known as com- plying with civil service standards, which are quite different to a true written competitive examination. Mr. HENDERSON. The gentleman from Texas is to be commended for his longtime interest in this field. He well knows the provisions of this bill are a vast improvement over what he have had. As the gentleman from Iowa indi- cated, the provisions of this bill will go a long way toward eliminating the buddy system, as we refer to it. In the employ- ment of retired former military person- nel, this is a vast step forward in the improvement of the civil service em- ployment procedures. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with the further explanation of the amendments of the Senate. The Civil Service Commission strongly objects to this amendment. It would cause inequities and incon- sistencies in the cases of those few re- tired members whose combined military retired pay and civilian compensation would be affected by these ceilings. A retired regular member employed in the Department of Defense in a GS-18 Classification Act scientific position would have a salary reduced by the total amount of his retired pay; however, if he were employed to do exactly the same kind of work by the same agency under Public Law 313 which authorizes com- pensation to be fixed outside the Classifi- cation Act, the reduction in his salary would be insignificant, if any, because he could be paid as much as We Secretary of Defense?up to $35-.000 under the new salary bill as passed by the Senate, H.R. 11049. If the same individual were a Retired Reserve member, he would have no re- duction in salary in the GS-18 position, but he could be subject to a reduction If he were employed under Public Law 313. The provisions of section 206 would encourage all inds of artificial arrange- ments to avoid the adverse maximum of the limits on particular individuals and groups, as indicated above. Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 relate to em- ployment in the Senate. the House of Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol. They are designed to continue the present employment policy of pro- hibiting any employee of those offices from receiving salary for more than one civilian office if the aggregate amount of basic compensation from such offices exceeds the sum of $2.000 per annum. Amendment No. 8 provides that the limitation on dual compensation for more than one civilian office under sec- tion 301 of the bill shall not apply to per- sons employed under Public Law 87-82, relating to employees of the Architect of the Capitol in the Senate restaurants, or to employees employed under section 208 of Public Law 812 of the 76th Congress, relating to employees of the Architect of the Capitol in the House of Representa- tives restaurant. The present !aw referred to in amend- ment No. 9 (2 U.S. C. 66a) prohibits dual compensation if one of the positions is in the U.S. Senate; however, one person may be employed in more than one part,- time position in the House of Representa- tives if the basic compensation does not exceed $2,000 per annum. Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 will retain the present dual employment rules, applica- ble to the employees of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Archi- i tect of the Capitol. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: Abbitt Alger Ashmore Avery Harvey. Mich. Baring Healey Bass Hebert Bennett, Mich. Haffman Blatnlk H !field 'Roll No. 1881 Griffiths Morrison Hansen Morton Harris Plicher Pool Powell Pucinskl Purcell Quie Randall Roberts, Ala. Roybal Ryan, Mich. Senner Skubitz Thomas Thompson, La. Toll Wallhauser Wickersham Wilson, Bob Bolling Brock Buckley Celler Chelf Davis, Tenn. Digs Dingell EvIns Fine Flynt Gibbons Gill Gray Hull Jones, Ala. Kee Kilburn Kilgore Knox Laird Ltrikford L pscomb L mg. La. Martin. Mass. Miler, N.Y. Moore Moorhead The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 369 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 16262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A further message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, an- nounced that the Senate had passed a joint resolution of the following title, in which the concurrence of the House Is requested: S.J. Res. 184. Joint resolution for the commemoration of the Honorable Herbert Hoover's 90th birthday, August 10, 1964. EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS IN MORE THAN ONE POSITION AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT OF RE- TIRED MEMBERS OF THE TJNI- FORMED SERVICES The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. HENDERSON]. The motion was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1964 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and emploVees in the Federal Government, and for other pur- poses, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, re- serving the right to object, this is the pay bill which was passed by this body and has now been passed by the other body. I hope the Members of the House real- ize that in the version of the other body there is a provision which takes a direct slap at the members of the Supreme Court of the United States. This version would limit the raise of Supreme Court members to $2,500 instead of $7,500. I want to go on record as saying that no matter how anyone may feel about the actions of the Supreme Court in various instances, this is highly inappropriate. It certainly would be a severe blow to our whole system of government. We should, if we so desire, have the courage to take action on the basis of whatever we might want to do to review their decisions and take positive legislative action to do so. Certainly it is picayune, small, and unseemly to act as the other body proposes. I hope that the conferees on our side, on the part of the House, will insist that the compensation of Justices of the Su- preme Court be at the level at which passed by the House. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Objection is heard. FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 10222) to strengthen the agricultural economy; to help to achieve a fuller and more effec- tive use of food abundances; to provide for improved levels of nutrition among economically needy households through a cooperative Federal-State program of food assistance to be operated through normal channels of trade; and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate ,amend- ments, as follows: Page 2, line 5, strike out "economically needy" and insert: "low-income". Page 2, lines 13 and 14, strike out "in eco- nomic need" and insert: "with low incomes". Page 2, line 20, strike out all after "(b)" down to and including line 25 and insert: "The term 'food' means any food or food product for human consumption except al- coholic beverages, tobacco, those foods which are identified on the package as being im- ported, and meat and meat products which are imported." Page 4, after line 20, insert: "(b) In areas where a food stamp program Is in effect, there shall be no distribution of federally owner foods to households under the authority of any other law except during emergency situations caused by a national or other disaster as determined by the Sec- retary.". Page 4, line 21, strike out "(b)" and insert "(cr. Page 5, strike out lines 4 to 16, inclusive, and insert: "SEC. 5. (a) Participation in the food stamp program shall be limited to those households whose income is determined to be a substantial limiting factor in the at- tainment of a nutritionally adequate diet." "(b) In complying with the limitation on participation set forth in subsection (a) above, each State agency shall establish standards to determine the eligibility of ap- plicant households. Such standards shall include maximum income limitations con- sistent with the income standards used by the State agency in administration of its federally aided public assistance programs. Such standards also shall place a limitation on the resources to be allowed eligible households. The standards of eligibility to be used by each State for the food stamp program shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary." Page 6, line 17, after "a" insert "low-cost". Page 11, line 8, after "required." insert "In approving the participation of the subdi- visions requested by each State in its plan of operation, the Secretary shall provide for an equitable and orderly expansion among the several States in accordance with their relative need and readiness to meet their requested effective dates of participation." Page 11, after line 19, insert: "(g) If the Secretary determines that there has been gross negligence or fraud on the part of the State agency in the certification of applicant households, the State shall upon request of the Secretary deposit into the separate account authorized by section 7 of this Act, a sum equal to the amount by which the value of any coupons issued as a result of such negligence or fraud exceeds the amount that was charged for such coupons under section 7(b) of this Act." July 23 Page 17, lines 11 and 12, strike out "not in excess of $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964;". Page 17, line 16, after "1967" insert "; and not in excess of such sum as may hereafter be authorized by Congress for any subse- quent fiscal year". Page 18, line 2, after "section." insert "If in any fiscal year the Secretary finds that the requirements of participating States will exceed the limitation set forth herein, the Secretary shall direct State agencies to reduce the amount of such coupons to be issued to participating households to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions of this subsection." Amend the title so as to read: "An act to strengthen the agricultural economy; to help to achieve a fuller and more effective use of food abundances; to provide for im- proved levels of nutrition among low-income households through a cooperative Federal- State program of food assistance to be oper- ated through normal channels of trade; and for other purposes." The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, reserv- ing the right to object, I assume the gentleman from North Carolina will ad- vise the House as to the nature and the import of the Senate amendments. Mr. COOLEY. I might say to my friend that the only one that is of great importance is what is known as the Mil- ler amendment dealing with imported meats. I had anticipated that some question would be propounded concern- ing that, and I would like to place this matter before the House now. The language in the bill clearly indi- cates that we do not intend for food stamps to be used to buy imported meat. We definitely do not want to do anything which would adversely affect the live- stock industry of this country. Not even by legislative history do we want to indicate that food stamps could not be used to buy meat products pro- duced domestically, but certainly we do not intend to require retailers to main- tain a private reporting service to warn them that they may be allowing custom- ers to use food stamps to buy imported beef which may be commingled with do- mestic meats in processed foods. I un- derstand that some foreign meats are used in processed foods. A recent report of the Tariff Commission indicates that a small amount of imported meat is sometimes used in frankfurters, bologna, luncheon meat, and canned products, but that on an average 80 percent of the meat used in these food articles is Ameri- can-produced meat. The definition "food" in this legisla- tion would require to the extent practi- cal that if the retailer knew he was offer- ing imported meat for sale, he could not sell such meat for food coupons. He could sell no food product that is labeled as imported on the package for food stamps. He could not, for example, sell any meat product that is identified as being imported when he bought it?such as carcass beef or frozen block beef?no matter whether he ground it for ham- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 16667 History will be kind to much of what has happened here. Needless to say, more has happened here to give the citizens of this country, yes even of the world, a more abundant and peaceful life. As one who has a deep and abiding in- terest in history and who reflects on It often, I recommend to the senators in our presence that their study of history never cease. There are important les- sons to be learned from history. Proper study of history can help us avoid the mistakes of the past. So I say to you of Girls Nation, watch carefully, study diligently, and absorb well what you witness here today. Main- tain your interest and perhaps someday you will take a scat down here on this floor as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. DONNA L. TUSSING, PRESIDENT OF GIRLS NATION (Mr. McINTIRE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Speaker, I feel highly privileged and proud to advise this body that Donna L. Tussing of Brew- er, Maine, Second Congressional District of Maine, yesterday was elected presi- dent of the Girls Nation. Girls Nation is, as we know, a culmination of Girls State, and is the wonderful youth citi- zenship training program conducted an- nually by the American Legion auxiliary to give high school Juniors practical ex- perience in the processes of government. Donna was born in Island Falls. Maine, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Tinging, now of Eddington. Maine. She Is 17 years of age and is in the class of 1965 at the Brewer High School. She Is an active participant in comunity activi- ties, and in her school program she takes a leading part in debating and basket- ball. Donna is also a member of the national honor society. She is one of four children, having two brothers, James, 13, and Philip, 9 years of age. She also has a 16-year-old sis- ter, Susan. Donna's father is a long-time employee of the Soil Conservation Service in Maine, and presently he is employed in conservation work in Penobscot County. Donna Tussing has every reason to be eminently proud, for this is the first time that the presidential office of Girls Na- tion has come to a representative from Maine. All Maine is indeed proud and applauds Donna's attainment. The Maine congressional delegation extends hearty congratulations to Donna on her very fine achievement?it is in- deed a high honor to serve as the head of an organization with those high ideals that are the standard of Girls Nation. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. MARTIN of California. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California makes the point of order that a quorum is not present. Evidently, a quorum is not present. Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: (Roll No. 1911 Alger Hawkins PRASERRO Avery Healey Pepper Baker Hebert Pilcher Baring Horton Powell Bass Jarman Sheppard Bennett. Mich Kee Slack Buckley Kilburn Steed Celler Kilgore Teague. Tex. Clausen, Lankford Thompson, La. Don If. Leainski Toll Davis, Tenn. Lloyd Van Pelt Duncan Long. Md. Walihauser Edmondson Morris Wickersham Evins Norbiad Williams Harris Os'..ertag Willis The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sisic). On this rollcall 388 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. PRAYER AND BIBLE READING IN THE PUBLIC scHoom (Mr. BECKER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. BECKER. Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident now to everyone that the chair- man of the Committee on the Judiciary does not intend and will not bring in a resolution to amend the Constitution to permit prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. I have this word from members of the Committee on the Judi- ciary. Therefore, Discharge Petition No. 3 is at the desk. We need less than 50 signatures now in order to bring this to the 218 required. There were Members on the floor here earlier complimenting the American Legion for the operation of Girls Nation and Boys Nation. While they are com- plimenting the American Legion these Members should sign the petition, be- cause the American Legion has at two national conventions endorsed prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and every Member is aware of this. Our Lord states, "Suffer ye little chil- dren to come unto Me," but the Supreme Court says "not in public schools." But we have the opportunity here at this ses- sion to correct this. I think this, being the greatest issue in the country, it should be done now. THE LATE DR. THOMAS HENRY CARROLL II (Mr. McCORMACK asked and was given permission to address the House fo- 1 minute and to include an editorial from the Washington Evening Star.) Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker it is with a sense of personal sadness that I call to the attention of the House the un- timely death of Dr. Thomas Henry Car- roll II, the 13th president of the George Washington University of Washington. D.C. The death of this great educator brings 1.0 an end the astounding career of a man deeply devoted to educational ideals and to the aims of public service. His interest in Joining together a knowl- edge of public affairs, along with studies of business and government, has brought new and vital ideas to the George Wash- ington University. President Carroll, by his able administrative leadership and his high academic standards, leaves a legacy that long should Clallenge the Gerge Washington University which he served so brilliantly and so willingly. The entire educational community mourns the loss of Dr. Carroll. To his beloved wife and family I extend the deepest sympathy of both Mrs. McCor- mack and myself. Loss or A LEADER George Washington University, the local community and in a broad sense the cause of higher education share a grievous loss In the death of Thomas H. Carroll. Its untime- liness adds a poignant touch of tragedy. He was still a young man, at the outset of a new career. His ceaseless energy and a singularly InfecUous enthusiasm were only beginning to unfold to others and to en- list their determined support in realizing the visions he saw fcr the university's future. In the brief 3 years since his inauguration as George Washington University's 13th presi- dent he had completed the groundwork and the outline of foundations to support the sort of structure his own dedication to purpose made es ident to others as a prac- tical, necessary, and attainable objective. He had won the confidence of a faculty and student body which found in him a cham- pion of their Interests in his insistence on academic excellence and of a board of trus- tees to which his personality and aspirations were attracting added national representa- tion. He had won ready acceptance by the community as one who seemed destined for constructive leadership. He leaves for others the pursuit and achievement of high aims that will not be abandoned but which seemed more readily accessible under his inspirational, dyne/111c guidance. ADJUSTMENT OF RATE OR BASIC ( COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OF- FICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE hDERAL GOVERNMENT Mr. O'NEILL from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 803, Rept. No. 1630) which was referred to the House Calen- dar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, That ?mmediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution the bill (HR. 11049) to adjust the rates of the basic compensa- tion of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same hereby :s taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate amend- ment be, and the same is hereby disagreed to, and that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses be, and the same Is hereby agreed to. THE POVERTY BILL Mr. YOUNG, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 806, Rept. No. 1631) which was referred to the House Calen- dar and ordered to be printed: Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole Huse on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11377) to mobilize the human and financial resources of the Nation to combat poverty in Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66BOOVR000500050001-9 16668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU July 29 the United States. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and con- tinue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Com- mittee on Education and Labor, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-min- ute rule. At the conclusion of the consid- eration of the bill for amendment, the Com- mittee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to re- commit with or without instructions. After the passage of the bill MR, 11377, it shall be in order in the House to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 2642 and to move to strike out all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 11377 as passed by the House. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Does the rule carry a motion to recommit with instruc- tions? The SPEAKER. The answer of the Chair is that if the proposed rule is adopted such a motion will be in order. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the Chair. CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 189, page 16630 of the RECORD, I am recorded as being absent. I was present, and answered to my name, and I ask unanimous consent that the permanent RECoRD be corrected accordingly. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colo- rado? There was no objection. AUTHORIZING TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSE TRAILERS AND MOBILE DWELLINGS OF MEMBERS OF UNI- FORMED SERVICES Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 8954) to amend section 409 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the transporta- tion of house trailers and mobile dwell- ings of members of the uniformed serv- ices within the continental United States, within Alaska, or between the continental United States and Alaska, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: "That section 409 of title 37, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "'I 409. Travel and transportation allow- ances: trailers "Under regulations prescribed by the Sec- retaries concerned and in place of the trans- portation of baggage and household effects or payment of a dislocation allowance, a member, or in the case of his death his de- pendent, who would otherwise be entitled to transportation of baggage, and household goods under section 406 of this title, may transport a house trailer or mobile dwelling within the continental United States, within Alaska, or between the continental United States and Alaska, for use as a residence by one of the following means? " ' (1) transport the trailer or dwelling and receive a monetary allowance in place of transportation at a rate to be prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, but not more than 20 cents a mile; " '(2) deliver the trailer or dwelling to an agent of the United States for transpor- tation by the United States or by commer- cial means; or "'(3) transport the trailer or dwelling by commercial means and be reimbursed by the United States subject to such rates as may be prescribed by the Secretaries con- cerned. However, the cost of transportation un- der clause (2) or the reimbursement un- der clause (3) may not be more than the lesser of (A) the current average cost for the commercial transportation of a house trailer or mobile dwelling; (B) 51 cents a mile; or (C) the cost of transporting the baggage and household effects of the mem- ber or his dependent plus the dislocation allowance authorized in section 40'7 of this title. Any payment authorized by this sec- tion may be made in advance of the trans- portation concerned. For the purposes of this section, 'continental United States" means the forty-eight contiguous States and the District of Columbia.'" The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 8954, with the Senate amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate amendment. The amendment by the Senate pro- vides a new ceiling on the maximum amount which may be paid for the com- mercial transportation of mobile homes owned by military personnel on perma- nent change of station. The Senate ceiling is established at 51 cents per mile as contrasted to the House ceiling which provided that re- imbursement was to be actual cost pro- vided that such cost did not exceed what it would otherwise cost to move the household effects of the member, plus the dislocation allowance to which he would be entitled. Under existing law, the maximum amount payable on a trailer move is 36 cents per mile. The bill as passed by the House would result in increased annual transporta- tion costs of approximately $1,246,000. The bill as passed by the Senate, which provides a lower ceiling on these costs, would result in increased annual transportation costs of approximately $1,075,000, a reduction of approximately $179,000 from the House bill. Although the bill as amended by the Senate is not as generous as the House- passed bill, I have been authorized by the Committee on Armed Services to request House approval of the Senate amendment on HR. 8954 since it does provide an assured and substantial in- crease in the trailer allowances for mili- tary mobile home owners from the pres- ent maximum of 36 cents to a new maxi- mum of 51 cents a mile. The Senate amendment was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1964 Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, under the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 802) and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11865) to increase benefits under the Fed- eral Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability In- surance System, to provide child's insurance benefits beyond age 18 while in school, to provide widow's benefits at age 60 on a re- duced basis, to provide benefits for certain individuals not otherwise eligible at age 72, to improve the actuarial status of the Trust Funds, to extend coverage, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed five hours, the bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be In order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to any section of the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous ques- tion shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one mo- tion to recommit. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require, and at the conclusion of my remarks, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BsowN]. (Mr. O'NEILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 802 provides for consideration of H.R. 11865, a bill to increase benefits under the Federal old-age, survivors, and disability insurance system, to provide child's insurance benefits beyond age 18 while in school, to provide widow's bene- fits at age 60 on a reduced basis, to pro- vide benefits for certain individuals not otherwise eligible at age 72, to improve the actuarial statuq of the trust funds, to extend coverage, and for other pur- poses. The resolution provides a closed rule, waiving points of order, with 5 hours of general debate. The purpose of H.R. 11865 is to im- prove the benefit and coverage provi- sions and the financing structure of the Federal old-age, survivors, and disability insurance system. The last across-the-board adjustment in social security insurance benefits, and the last adjustment in the amount of annual earnings that is taxed and credit- Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 16841 Passage, by a 72-to-15 vote Tuesday last by the other body confirmed this story. Now the pressure is on to kill the proposal in the House. As a matter of fact, I understand that Secretary of Agriculture Freeman was up here on the Hill last night conferring with the Demo- cratic leadership. I think the House ought to know what this visit was all about. The administration hopes to avoid the embarrassment of a veto, enabling Presi- dent Johnson to maintain the agreement giving New Zealand and Australia a big share of American beef markets, a big share of our beef imports. It seems logical to me that if the Sen- ate overwhelmingly voted for the limita- tion of foreign meat imports, by a 57- vote margin, then certainly the proposal should come before the House of Repre- sentatives for a vote. I, for one, will look with great interest to see what is going to happen in the next few days. IMPORT QUOTAS ON BEEF (Mr. ALBERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time because what the gentleman has just said is news to me. I want to advise the gentleman from Florida [Mr. GURNEY] that his statement about Mr. Freeman's conferring with the Democratic leadership is news to me. I did not know anything about such a meeting. THE LATE SENATOR CLAIR ENGLE (Mr. JOHNSON of California asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, it is with a heavy heart that I notify you of the death of your friend and mine, Senator CLAIR ENGLE, who passed away this morning at 3:10 in his home on New Jersey Avenue. Mr. Speaker, CLAIR was a very dear friend of mine. I succeeded him in the congressional district which he repre- sented at the time of his election to the U.S. Senate. Mr. Speaker, CLAIR ENGLE was an un- tiring worker for our district, the State of California and the Nation. I know- of no other person in our dis- trict of whom the people thought more and held in higher esteem. Mr. Speaker, CLAIR was elected by the votes of both Republicans and Demo- crats. He enjoyed a very distinguished career in this House. He had just com- pleted 6 years of service in the U.S. Sen- ate. Mr. Speaker, CLAIR ENGLE will be missed by all of us in California and I am sure by many of us here in the House of Representatives who were his very good friends as a result of his 16 years of service in the House of Representa- tives. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to Mrs. Engle and their daughter Yvonne in this great loss. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: Alger Ashmore Avery Baring Barrett Bass Bennett, Mich. Bolling Brock Buckley Davis, Tenn. Dawson Diggs Duncan Evins Harris [Roll No. 1941 Harsha Healey Hebert Hull Johnson, Pa. Jones, Mo. Kee Kilburn Kirwan Lankford Lesinski Lloyd McIntire MacGregor Miller, N.Y. Norblad Passman Pepper Pilcher Powell Rains Ryan, Mich. Sheppard Slack Toll Tupper Van Pelt Vinson Wallhauser Willis Winstead The SPEAKER. On this rallcall 387 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were disp ed with. RELATING TO H.R. 1104 Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 803 and ask for its Immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compen- sation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other pur- poses, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the same hereby is taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby dis- agreed to, and that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses be, and the same is hereby agreed to. Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Baown] and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 803 simply provides for H.R. 11049 to go to conference. The situation regarding the pay bill dealing with the executve,,legis- lative, judicial, civil service, and postal employees was objected to at the time that a request was made to disagree to the Senate amendment and to ask for a eonfernce. As a result, it was referred to the Committee on Rules, and we here today present a resolution as the Clerk has read. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can expeditiously act upon this resolu- tion to permit the conferees on the part of the House to sit down with the con- ferees on the part of the other body to discuss the differences that exist be- tween the pay raise bills within the two Houses and then report back, at which time of course, the House will have an opportunity either to accept or to re- ject the action of the conferees. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SISK. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. I thought that accord- ing to some of the newspapers the mem- bers of the Democrat delegation from California were going to be opposed to this bill unless the Senate increased the salary of Members of Congress by $10,000. The Senate left the increase at $7,500. I fully anticipated that there would be strong objection to this bill from the Democrat Members of the House in view of the publicity I read in the newspapers. The gentleman says he wants to han- dle this matter expeditiously. Appar- ently there is not going to be any op- position from the California Democrats. Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, of course I am not here delegated to speak for the California delegation or for any part of the California delegation. But I will say this, speaking for the Member now on the floor, that at the time the original pay raise bill came out I was a strong supporter of the increases provided in the first bill. I happened to handle the rlle at the time that bill was before e House. I supported it very vigorous- ly at that time. The bill, as my good friend from Iowa knows, was defeated in spite of the fact that I voted for it. We have back here again another bill of somewhat different nature with lesser increases in some instances and more increases in others. But, having studied the art of compromise as I know my friend from Iowa sometimes finds him- self confronted with, I think now is the time to permit our conferees from the two bodies to sit down and see what we can work out. Then our positions, mine as well as the positions of other Mem- bers of the House, will be expressed at the time the conference report is brought back to the House. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will my friend from California yield? Mr. SISK. I am happy to yield to my good friend from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from Iowa seldom if ever gets compromised to the point of not objecting to a bill that he feels constrained to object to. Mr. SISK. I agree with the gentleman. I think the gentleman properly made an objection to this bill going to conference, giving us an opportunity here at least to talk about it and to discuss with our con- ferees what their attitude might be. I, for one, have no criticism at all of the objection which the gentleman made, rightfully, in line with the parliamen- tary procedure. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution and reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. SISK asked and was given Per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 16842 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply provides that upon its adoption, there shall be taken from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 11049, the so-called pay increase bill, disagree to the Senate amendments, and send the bill to conference. There will be only one vote, and that is on the adoption of the resolution. HR. 11049 itself was a controversial measure. It was approved by this House. A similar bill was defeated in March, as I recall. This bill was approved by the House, was sent to the other body, and amended over there. There are consid- erable differences between the House bill and the measure as it was amended by the Senate. As the bill cleared the House it, in my opinion, gave a little too much of a break, too much consideration, to those Government employees, officials, or ap- pointees in the higher brackets of in- come, and did not give sufficient consid- eration to those Government workers, postal workers, and classified employees of the Federal Government, in the lower brackets of income. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the amendments adopted in the other body, certain increases are now included in the bill as it came here for consideration of the Senate amendments so as to give, or it does give, greater consideration and greater pay increases, or a higher per- centage of pay increases?to the lower- paid employees and workers in the Fed- eral Government, and not quite so much of the so-called gravy to some of the higher paid officials of our Government, including, by the way, certain Federal Court officials who seemingly are more engaged these days in legislative work than in judicial work. Mr. Speaker, I hope when this bill goes to conference careful attention will be given to these differences and that when the bill comes back to the House from the conference committee, it will con- tain some of the amendments adopted in the other body just a little more fair to the lower income groups among our Federal employees than provided in the original House bill, and not quite so lib- eral an arrangement as the House bill provisions for increasing the pay of some of the higher paid appointees and offi- cials of the Federal Government who now seem to be doing pretty well here in Washington, none of whom are seem- ingly anxious to leave their present posi- tions because of any feeling their com- pensation is entirely too low. Mr. Speaker, I feel this resolution should be adopted so this matter can follow the usual procedure, or legislative course of going to conference, being con- sidered by the conference committee, and brought back to the House in the form of a conference committee report. The House itself can then pass upon any of the amendments, or any of the changes, that may be made in the bill by the conference committee itself. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a moment to point out that I understand both the House and the Senate bills con- tain an increase for Members of Con- gress of, not $10,000, as had been re- quested by some groups here in the House, but of $7,500 per annum. In view of the fact this provision is not in dispute?that item in the bill will not be subject to consideration by the con- ference committee. Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker. will the gentleman yield? The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Ohio has expired. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute in order to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. May I compliment the gentleman on his good statement. I would like to point out to the Mem- bers of the House, to those of us who are conservative Members of the House, that this bill calls for a cost-of-living increase and adjustment of pay rates on a fair and equitable basis. This bill should be sent to conference to work out the small differences between the Senate and the House versions of the This pay raise legislation will make for good, efficient, and economical Govern- ment service voluntarily given by em- ployees who feel that we in Congress are interested in their welfare and that of their families. Therefore, I would suggest to my friend the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gaossl that in order to be conservative we should all be constrained to vote for this rule and send the bill to conference. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON] and the other Members of the House that even at the best, as I understand this bill, it will cost about $550 million yearly. That will be the cost tag placed upon the measure, and the price which will have to be paid by the taxpayers of the United States once this bill becomes law. Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS]. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentle- man from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON] has a great deal more faith I think than anyone else in the House of Representa- tives as to the results of the conference on this bill. It is an event when a con- ference of the House and Senate cuts spending on almost any bill. Mr. Speaker, this resolution ought to be defeated. I am opposed to this pay increase bill, and if the gentleman from Pennsylvania is opposed he will vote against the resolution as will everyone else who is opposed to a pay increase. Why send it to conference? Let it be defeated here and now. However. I labor under no illusion as to what will likely happen here today because the rubberstamp is in operation, and it has been since the House back in March, by a 38-vote margin, defeated a pay increase bill in a direct confronta- tion on the issue. Then the legislation was resurrected and, as the gentleman from Ohio has well said, and despite July 30 minor amendments on the part of the other body, this bill authorizes the spending of more than a half-billion a year on salary increases. Members of the House are going to participate in a 331A -percent increase, no matter how thick or how thin you try to slice it, if you vote for this bill. Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield'? Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentle- man from California. Mr. SISK. The gentleman mentionad that Membeis of the House will be vot- ing at least a 331/3-percent increase. I want to say it is my understanding if this bill passes in either form we will be voting to pay Members of Congress, the 89th Congress, who are here next January. The new rate of pay, I believe, will be something like $30.000 after Jan- uary 1. I do not know how many of us will be in the Congress next year, but I think it is well to bring that out. The original bill and the present bill pro- vide for the Members of the 89th Cor.- gress, the Members who serve in that Congress. Mr. GROSS. I am sure it will be good news to the Republican opponent of the gentleman from California to know that he does not expect to come back in Jan- uary. Mr. SISK. I might say it apparent- ly is true that my Republican opponent In California is an avid reader of the RECORD, but I did not infer I was not desirous personally to be back. We will have that little discussion out there, however, in the next few months. Mr. GROSS. There will be a good deal of discussion on this and related aspects in the gentleman's district, and in my own district. Mr. Speaker, once again I warn tha ; approval of this irresponsible pay legis- lation will stimulate another wage and price spiral across the country and feed the flames of inflation. In this connection I call attention to a statement made by President Johnsor. at Atlantic City last March at which time he said: We roust not choke off our needed and speedy economic expansion by a revival of the price-wage spiraling. Avoiding that spiral is the responsibility of business, and It is also the responsibility of labor, Since Lyndon Johnson is applying heavy pressure in support of this salary grab, I assume that any statement he may make at the Democrat National Convention in Atlantic City in August will be just as meaningless as the one I just read and which emanated from the same place, Atlantic City, last March. It is impossible for me to comprehend how a President of the United States can call on business and industry to hold the wage-price line and at the same time beat Members of Congress over the back to support a pay increase bill that will cost well above a half billion dollars a year. And it is impossible for me to com- prehend how Members of Congress can yield to this pressure and boost their own salaries 33 percent when they know that the money to pay their increases and others will have to be borrowed, thus adding to the already staggering debt and deficit. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 ???? .11111. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Mr. Speaker, I again call attention to the fact that the Federal employees re- tirement fund is $34 billion in the red, and that this bill, increasing salaries, will only compound that deficit. Incidentally, I understand that con- ferees on this bill have already met even though they have not been so designated by the Speaker. So perhaps this is an exercise in futility here today. Perhaps the time devoted to this bill now and the time devoted to an official conference would have been better spent on the so-called poverty legislation that is to follow. This is quite a demonstration you are giving the people of this Nation today, promoting a salary-increase bill, and then coming to the floor, probably next week or at a very early date, with a war- on-poverty bill. I wonder what the pub- lic is going to think about a Congress that votes itself handsome pay increases and the same for Federal judges and Justices of the Supreme Court who pay nothing into the retirement fund and have lifetime jobs. Incidentally, where is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court today who is scheduled to get an $8,000- a-year pay increase? He is off enjoying a vacation, in Europe while the report on the assassination of the late President Kennedy, which was supposed to have been made on June 1, we are now told may be made by the middle of Septem- ber. I am sure everyone is anxious to give the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is the chairman of an investigating committee, an $8,000-a-year increase so that he can enjoy a vacation when he is supposed to be here doing his work, Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN]. (Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, yes- terday a billion and a half dollars. To- day a half billion dollars. Next week an- other billion dollars?this time to end poverty. And so we go merrily and irresponsibly on our way to more permanently incurred obligations, to more deficit financing, to still higher national debt, to more inter- est charges on that debt, and to more borrowing to pay for the pyramiding cost of borrowing. This is not the occasion to discuss the details of the Federal pay bill. Suffice to say at this point that in ad- vancing this bill one step toward final enactment we are repeating today the offense we committed yesterday. Yesterday with respect to the social security amendments we undertook to offset the consequences of inflation by involving the social security program more deeply in the processes of inflation. Today it is proposed we do the same thing with respect to the compensation of Federal employees, and we compound the offense by including unconscionable sal- ary increases for Members of Congress and the Federal judiciary and for top officials of the executive branch. On the pretext of undertaking to off- set the effects of inflation in the area of Federal compensation, we are proposing to involve the Federal salary and wage system even more deeply in the processes of inflation. I urge the defeat of this resolution. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT]. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, the subject before us is a simple matter of whether or not we are going to allow the majority of the House and Senate to work its will on this bill. The House passed this bill 243 to 157; that is 61 percent to 39 percent. The Senate passed the bill by 58 to 21, which is 73 to 27 percent. We have been fooling around with this bill since it was first suggested in May of 1963. We ran into one obstruction after another, not the least of which was objection to even going to conference. All that they have succeeded in doing by this tactic :s to waste time. The mer- it, of the bill are not under consideration and cannot be in the time that is avail- able to us. I want to note in contrast that the military pay raise bill was introduced in the other body and passed by the com- mittee and passed by the other body and has been reported out by the committee here in less than 1 month. It is the sec- ond military pay raise in recent years. We will probably be voting on it soon. But the simple resolution before this body today is, I repeat, whether or not a majority of the House and of the Senate are to be allowed to be repre- sented in a conference committee meet- ing to work out the differences in a bill which has been agreed on and which has been budgeted for. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution and urge that we get on with our business. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa, made some remarks regarding the position of the California delegation and of the par- ticular Member here discussing the mat- ter, and particularly with reference to who would receive these increases. As I understand, the gentleman from Iowa seeks reelection to the next Congress, as I am seeking reelection, and I am just a bit curious, assuming that this legislation passes, as to whether the gentleman pro- poses to accept his salary increase next year assuming that he is a Member of the 89th Congress. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] for his answer. Mr. GROSS. In view of what the gen- tleman said a little while ago, and the fact that he apparently will have a cam- paign in his district, I was giving some slight consideration to turning over my share of the increase to his campaign. I doubt that I will do it, but I was giving it consideration. I think the gentleman is going to need help. Mr. SISK. Let me say to my good friend that I appreciate the generosity of that gesture and I hope he goes through with it. I am more than happy to re- ceive any campaign funds that are given in good ethics because I think we can do a good job out in California. I under- 16843 stand that recently my potential op- ponent out there inherited some help which I do not think he is too happy about, but anyway he is going to be on the ticket and running with the gentle- man's candidate for President. I think we will have an interesting campaign this fall. Of course, if the gentleman can make a contribution to my campaign, it is more than welcome. Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will yield further, I am sure that after the Democrat convention there will be a lot of changing of minds on your side of the aisle about some of the spending that is going on because I am sure the Presi- dent is going to go over to Atlantic City and repeat what he said last March. I did not believe he meant it at that time, but he may mean it sometime?I do not know. I have a hard time keeping up with him on what he means. Mr. SISK. If the gentleman from Iowa will permit me to say so, you know I served for some 6 years as a Member of the Congress under the gentleman's President, President Eisenhower. I think President Eisenhower's position was not very clear and sometimes I did not know quite what his position was on certain issues. I did the best I could to follow him. I think my good friend will agree with me that it was not an easy time, so I think in the final analysis this thing will all work out and we will wait and see what happens in Atlantic City. Mr. GROSS. You are going to have a plank in your platform against inflation and spiraling of wages; are you not? Mr. SISK. Oh, I am sure about that. But the gentleman failed to answer my question, assuming that we are both back here as Members of the 89th Congress, whether he will accept his salary in- crease. Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman let me cogitate on that for a little while, at least until we see what happens? Mr. SISK. We hope to be together to discuss this in early January. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution and move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the "ayes" ap- peared to have it. Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll. The question was taken; and there were?yeas 244, nays 131, not voting 56, as follows: [Roll No. 195] Addabbo Albert Anderson Andrews, N. Dak. Ashley Aspinall YEAS-244 Auchincloss Barrett _ Barry Bates Becker Beckworth Bell Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Blatnik Boggs Boland Bolton, Frances P. Bolton, Oliver P. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 16844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Bonner Bow Brooks Broomfield Brown, Calif. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, Va. Burke Burkhalter Burton. Calif. Byrne. Pa. Byrnes, Wis. Cahill Cameron Carey Casey Ceclerberg Geller Clausen. Don H. Cohelan Conte Cooley Corbett Corrnan Daddario Daniels Davis, Ga. Delaney Dent Denton Derouman Diggs Dingell Donohue Downing Dulski Dwyer Edmondson Edwards Elliott Ellsworth Fallon Farbstein Fascell Feighan Finnegan Fino Flood Flynt Fogarty Fraser Friedel Fulton, Pa. Fuqua Gallagher Garmatz Gary Glairno Gibbons Gilbert Gill Glenn Gonzalez Goodell Grabowski Gray Green. Oreg. Green, Pa. Griffiths Grover Gubser Hagan Ga. Hagen, Calif. Halpern Hanna Abbitt Abele Abernethy Adair Andrews, Ala. Ashbrook Ayres Baker Baldwin Battin Beermann Belcher Bennett, Fla. Berry Betts Bray Brock Bratzman Broyhill, N.C. Burleson Burton, Utah Chamberlain Chelf Chenoweth Clancy Clark Clawson, Del Hansen Harding Hardy Harrison Hawkins Hays Healey Henderson Herlong Hoffman Holland Horton Hosmer Ichord Joe'son Johnson, Calif. Johnson, Pa. Johnson, Wis. Karsten Kastenmeter Keith Kelly Kilgore King, Calif. King, N.Y. Kirwan Kluczynaki Kornegay Kunkel Laird Libonati LindsaY Lipscomb Long, La. Long, Md. McCulloch McDade McDowell McFall McLo,key McMillan Macdonald Madden Mahon Mail'lard Martin, Mass. Mathias Matsunaga Matthews Michel Miller. Calif. Milliken Minish Monagan Montoya Moore Moorhead Morgan Morris Morrison Morse Morton Moss Multer Murphy, Ill. Murphy, N.Y. Murray Nodal Nix O'Brien, N.Y. O'Hara. O'Hara, Mich. OKonskt Olsen, Mont. O'Neill Garners NAYS-1.31 Cleveland Collier Colmer Cramer Cunningham Curtin Curtis Dague Derwinskl Devine Dole Dorn Dowdy Everett Findley Fisher Ford Foreman Fountain Gathings Goodling Grant Griffin Gross Gurney Haley Hall Ostertag Patman Patton Peily Pepper Philbin Pike Pirnie Pool Powell Price PutMaki Purcell ReId, N.Y. Reuss Rhodes, Pa. Riehlman Rivers, Alaska Robison Rodin() Rogers, Colo. Rooney, N.Y. Rooney, Pa. Roosevelt Rosenthal Rostenkowski Roush Roy bal Ryan, N.Y. St Germain St. Onge Schwengel Scott Benner Sheppard Shipley Sibal Sickles Sisk Smith, Calif. Smith. IOWA Stafford Staggers Steed Stephens Stratton Sullivan Taleott Taylor Teague, Calif. Thomas Thompson, N.J. Thompson, Tex. Tollefson Trimble Tuten Udall Ullman Van Deeriln Vanik Waggonner Watson Watts Weltner Westland White Whitener Wickersham Widnall Wilson, Charles H. Wright Wydier Wyman Young Zablocki Harsh a Harvey, Ind. Harvey, Mich. Hechier Hoeven H3ran Huddleston Hutchinson Jarman Jensen Johansen Jonas Jones, Ala. Kyl Langen Latta Lennon McClory MacGregor Marsh Martin, Calif. Martin, Nebr. May Meader Mills Minahall Mosher Hatcher Rogers, Tex. Springer Nelsen Roudebush Stinson Perkins Rumsfeld Stubblefield Pickle St. George Taft Pillion Saylor Thomann, WIS, Poage Schadeberg Tuck Pot/ Schenck Utt GlOte Schneebell Weaver Quillen Schwelker Whalley Randall Secreat Wharton Reid, Ill. Selden Whitten Retie!. Short Williams Rhodes, Ariz. Shrivel' Wilson, Bob Rich Slier Wilson, Ind, Roberta, Ala. Skubitz Winstead Roberta, Tex. Smith, Va. Younger Rogers, Fla. Snyder NOT VOTING-56 Alger Arencis Ashmore Avery Baring Bass Bennett, Mich. Bolling linidemas Bromwell Bruce Buckley Davis, Tenn. Dawson Duncan Eying ForreAer Frelinghuysen Fulton, Tenn. Halleck Harris I lebert Holifield Hull Jennings Jones. Mo. Karth Kee Keogh Kilburn Knox Landrum Lankford Leggett Lesineki Lloyd McIntire Miller, N.Y. Norbiad Olson, Minn. Pe.ssman Pitcher Rains Rivers, S.C. Ryan, Mich. Sikes Slack Staebler Teague, Tex. Thompson, La. Toll Tupper Van Pelt Vinson Wallhauser Willis So the resolution was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: - Mr. Hebert with Mr. WallhaUser. Mr. Keogh with Mr. Tupper. Mr. Brademsui. with Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Evins with Mr. Bruce. Mr. Hull with Mr. Norblad. Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Mc- Intire. Mr. Willis with Mr. Knox. Mr. Harris t?Tith Mr. Miller of New York. Mr. Duncan with Mr. Bennett of Michigan. Mr. Slack with Mr. Van Pelt. Mr. Baring With Mr. BromWell. Mr. Sikes with Mr. Alger. Mr. Baas with Mr. Kilburn. Mr. Jennings with Mr. Avery. Mr. Holifield with Mrs. Kee, Mr. Karth with Mr. Buckley. Mr. Landrum with Mr. Lankford. Mr. Ryan of Michigan with Mr. Dawson. Mr. Toll with Mr. Lesinski. Mr. Fulton of Tennessee With Mr. Passman. Mr. Rivers of South Carolina with Mr. Staebier. Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Davis of Ten- nessee. Mr. Leggett with Mr. Vinson. Mr. Rains with Mr. Forrester. Mr. Ashmore with Mr. Filcher. Mr. RHODES of Arizona changed his vote from "yea" to "nay." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The doors were opened. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints the following conferees: Messrs. MURRAY, MORRISON. and CORBETT. NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESER- VATION SYSTEM Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to consider the bill (H.R. 9070) to establish a National Wil- derness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes; and pending that - July 30 motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members speaking in gen- eral debate may have the privilege ct including charts, tables, and other perti- nent matter with their statements. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Co:- orado? There was no objection. The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the cor.- sideration of HR. 9070, with Mr. GARY In the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reat.- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 14 minutes. (Mr. ASPINALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, it is with a deep sense of satisfaction and with great pleasure that I advise the House that HR. 9070, the wilderness bill as amended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, is a core - promise measure that I feel can be sup- ported by everyone. In bringing the bill to the floor today I take this opportunity to acknowledge the cooperation of those who have mace it possible for this compromise to have been reached. I want the record to te clear that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations cooperated very closely with the chairman of your Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs nom speaking. President Kennedy was personally Ir - terested in the success of the movement for a compromise wilderness bill, which was assured just a few days before the tragedy of November 22, 1963. So many others contributed to the development of the compromise that I could not possibly name and thank them all. I would be remiss, however, if I did not mention the cooperative spirit of the ranking minority member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR], long one of the leading advocates of wilderness preservation: the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DIN- GELL 1, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. BARING] who, as chairman of the Sut - committee on Public Lands, conducted the hearings on this legislation: and finally, those private citizens represent- ing organizations interested in the we of national forests and other federally own lands, ranging from those who desire preservation of large areas in the:r natural state through those who seek recreation in these areas and to thwe whose livelihood depends on the availa - bility of these public land areas. There is no statutory authority at the present time to set aside and retain arecs of federally owned lands in their natural state. However, since 1924 the Chief of the Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture have in one way or another set aside areas within the national forests for wilderness preservation. For the part several years we have had a national dis- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CJA-RDP.66BAD403R000500050001-9 17267 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECUttu kil_PUJE cattlemen is for the House to pass iny resolution. This would limit meat im- ports in general to the average for the 5-year period ending on December al, 1963. It would assign strict quotas to beef-producing nations, setting an im- port ceiling 30 percent below last year's nonrestrictive quota. The cattle industry is today one of the most significant elements in the Amer- ican agricultural economy. For example, $1 of every $5 received from sales of agricultural products is derived from calves and cattle. Moreover, 80 percent of the U.S. corn crop and 70 percent of all harvested crops are consumed by American stock; and, of course, the beef industry indirectly affects the entire economy, froin the large implement man- ufacturers to small local businesses. The Senate passage of H.R. 1839 to restrict the importation of beef, veal, lamb, and mutton challenges the House of Representatives to respond in like manner to the problems facing Amer- ican stockmen. The establishment of import quotas will not, of course, completely solve the price dilemma which faces cattlemen. Yet imports add significantly to the low price problem; and the setting up of quotas would make a meaningful con- tribution to improving the outlook for the U.S. agricultural economy. A very few years ago, the beef imports con- stituted only from 2 percent to 4 percent of the total market. In 1963 the figure was over 11 percent. Such an increase must inevitably affect the domestic cattle raisers to a large degree. Further- more, this great rise in imports occurred at a critical time when there was an in- crease in domestic production, thus ag- gravating an already adverse situation. American stockmen are certainly pre- pared to accept and deal with the normal cyclical fluctuations in the do- mestic beef market, but a new element has complicated their problems. It must be remembered that prior to 1958 the U.S. beef and cattle markets were, in ef- fect, protected. The modification of the United Kingdom-Australian meat agree- ment in that year released a flood of Australian beef exports. The mainte- nance and increase of western European trade barriers has helped to concentrate this Australian increase on the already unstable beef market in the United States. American stockmen have suf- fered because of the actions of the United Kingdom in -encouraging its own cattle industry. In my own State of Montana, a recent study shows that our State lost nearly $4 million in 1963 alone because of imports of beef and veal. How long can we allow this situation to exist? It has been charged that congressional legislation of quotas would impair the position of the executive division of our Government in its negotiations in Geneva for a lowering of trade barriers. Yet this position is indeed open to question. While the United States provides fewer restrictions and higher prices than the other nations importing large quantities of meat, both Australia and New Zealand effectively prohibit importation of most meats. In view of this, it would seem that a firm, resolute stand by the Congress of the United States would strengthen the American trade position, since it would show U.S. desire to rectify unfair and unbalanced trade situations. Amer- ican negotiators in Geneva would be "able to reach more equitable agreements if they were able to bargain on the basis of a clear statement of concern for domestic industries by the elected Rep- resentatives of the American people. It has also been stated that establish- ment of beef import quotas would dam- age our relations with our allies, partic- ularly Australia and New Zealand. This charge also seems questionable. We must remember that Germany recently Increased tremendously their tariff on frozen chickens without damaging the United States-German alliance; and, as pointed out before, both Australia and New Zealand restrict importations of meats. The proposed American quota on beef is certainly a modest measure. Between allies a certain flexibility, a certain give and take is part of the nor- mal course of relations. This import bill certainly falls in this category. But one of the most important con- siderations which calls for passage of this bill lies in the prospects for the fu- ture of American stockmen. As the statements of cattle producers from all over the United States clearly indicate, the beef industry and related industries are deeply concerned over what seems to be a lack of interest and understanding by their elected Representatives. The future of cattle prices ,is uncertain and stockmen know it. A Department of Agriculture study indicates that domestic problems will continue for some time. Furthermore, the current lull in imports cannot be expected to continue indefin- itely. When the present beef shortage on the world market ceases, foreign meats may flood America in greater quantities than ever before. The volun- tary agreements thus far concluded do not really meet this situtation-by 1966 Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand will be able to ship more beef, into the United States than they did even in 1963. For all these reasons, I am urging the House to support my resolution, House Resolution 812. I have written the Com- mittee on Rules and requested early hearings and favorable consideration. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1964 Mr. MURRAY submitted the following conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Govern- ment, and for other purposes: CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 1647) The committee of conference on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compen- sation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other pur- poses, having met, after full and free con- ference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagree- ment to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: "That this Act may be cited as the 'Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964? "TITLE I-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SYSTEMS "Short title "SEc. 101. This title may be cited as the 'Federal Employees Salary Act of 1964'. "Classification Act employees "SEC. 102. (a) Section 603(b) of the Clas- sification Act of 1949, as amended (76 Stat. 843; 5 U.S.C. 1113(b)), is amended to read as follows: "'(b) The compensation schedule for the General Schedule shall be as follows: Per annum rates and steps It I 1 2 a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GB-1 $3, 385 $3, SOO $3, 615 $3, 730 $3, 846 $3, 960 $4, 075 $4, 190 $4, 305 $4, 420 08-2 3, 680 3,805 3,030 4,055 4, 180 4,305 4, 430 4,555 4, 680 4,805 08-3 4,005 4, 140 4, 275 4, 410 4, 545 4,680 4, 815 4, 950 3,085 5, 220 08-4 4, 480 4,630 4,780 4,930-5,080 3,230 5,380 5,680 5,680 5,830 GB-S 5, 000 5, 165 5, 330 6, 49.5 5, 660 5, 826 5, 990 6, 155 6, 320 6, 485 08-6 5, 505 5,600 5,875 6,060 6,245 6, 430 6,615 6,800 6,985 7, 170 08-7 8,050 6,250 8,450 6,650 6,800 7, 050 7,260 7,450 7, 650 7,830 08-8 6, 630 6,850 7,070 7,200 7,510 7,730 7,050 8,170 8,300 8,610 08-0 7220 7,465 7,710 7,953 8,200 8,445 8,690 8,035 9,180 0,425 GB-j0 7, 900 8, 170 8, 440 8, 710 8,060 0,280 9,820 9,700 10,060 10, 330 08-11 8, 650 8, 945 9,240 9,635 9,830 10,125 15,420 10,715 11,010 11, 305 GS-12 10,250 10,605 10,060 11,315 11,670 12,025 12,380 15,735 13,000 13,445 08-13 12,078 12, 495 12, 915 13, 335 13, 755 14, 175 14, 695 15, 015 15, 435 15, 855 08-14 14, 170 14, 660 15, 150 16, 640 16, 130 16,620 17, 110 17, 600 18,090 18,580 GB-is 16,460 17, 030 1.7,800 18,170 18, 740 19, 310 19, 880 20,460 21,020 21, 590 08-16 18,035 10,590 20,245 20, 900 21, 555 22, 210 22, 865 33,320 24, 175 08-17 21,445 22,105 22,045 23,695 24,445 08-18 24,500 . ' "(b) Except as provided in subsection (d) of section 504 of the Federal Salary Re- form Act of 1962, the rates of basic compen- sation of officers and employees to whom the compensation schedule set forth in subsec- tion (a) of ibis section applies shall be ini- tially adjusted as of the effective date of this section, as follows; "(1) If the officer or employee is receiv- ing basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this section at one of the rates of a grade in the General Sched- ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, he shall receive a rate of basic compensation at the corresponding rate in effect on and after such date, "(2) If the officer or employee is receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate be- tween two rates of a grade in the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, he shall receive a rate of basic Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17268 Approved For Ree Z005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 LAINGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 3 compensation at the higher of the two cor- responding rates in effect on and after such date. "(3) If the officer or employee is receiv- ing basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate in excess of the maximum rate for his grade, he shall receive (A) the maximum rate for his grade in the new schedule, or (B) his existing rate of basic compensation if such existing rate is higher. "(4) If the officer or employee. Immedi- ately prior to the effective date of this sec- tion, is receiving, pursuant to section 2(b) (4) of the Federal Employees Salary In- crease Act of 1955. an existing aggregate rate of compensation determined under section 208(b) of the Act of September I. 1954 (68 Stat. 1111), plus subsequent increases au- thorized by law, he shall receive an aggre- gate rate of compensation equal to the suns of his existing aggregate rate of compensa- tion, on the day preceding the effective date of this section, plus the amount of increase made by this section in the maximum rate of his grade, until (1) he leaves his position. or (it) he is entitled to receive aggregate compensation at a higher rate by reason of the operation of this Act or any other pro- vision of law; but, when such position be- comes vacant, the aggregate rate of com- pensation of any subsequent appointee thereto shall be fixed in accordance with applicable provisions of law. Subject to clauses (i) and (11) of the immediately pre- ceding sentence of this paragraph, the amount of the increase provided by this section shall be held and considered for the purpose of section 208(b) of the Act of Sep- tember 1, 1954, to constitute a part of the existing rate of compensation of the em- ployee. "(5) If the officer or employee is in a position in grade 16 or 17 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, to which he was promoted on or after the first day of his first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 1964. and if he held such position, or another position in the same grade, on the effective date of this section, his rate of basic compensation shall be adjusted, as of such effective date. to that rate of basic compensation to which he would have been entitled if the compen- sation schedule in subsection (a) of this section had been in effect on the date of his promotion. "(6) If the officer or employees, at any time during the period beginning on the effective date of this section and ending on the date of enactment of this Act, was promoted from one grade under the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, to another such grade at a rate which Is above the minimum rate thereof, his rate of basic compensation shall be adjusted retroactively from the effective date of this section to the date on which he was so promoted, on the basis of the rate which he was receiving during the period from such effective date to the date of such promotion and, from the date of such promo- tion, on the basis of the rate for that step of the appropriate grade of the General Sched- ule contained in this section which corre- sponds numerically to the step of the grade of the General Schedule for such officer or employee which was in effect (without re- gard to this Act) at the time of such promo- tion. "SEC. 103. (a) Section 801 of the Classifica- tion Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 1131), relating to new appointments, is amended to read as follows: " 'SEC. 801. All new appointments shall be made at the minimum rate of the appropri- ate grade, except that in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission which provide for such considerations as the candidate's existing salary, unusually high or unique qualifications, or a special need of the Government for his services, the head of any department may, with the approval of the Commission in each specific case, appoint individuals to positions In grade 13 and above of the General Schedule at such rate or rates above the minimum rate of the appropriate grade as the Commis/310n may authorize for this purpose. The approval of the Commis- sion in each specific case shall not be re- quired with respect to appointments made by the Librarian of Congress.'. " ( b) Section 505(b) of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105(b)), relating to the limitation on numbers of positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the Gen- eral Schedule of such Act, Is amended by Inserting '(i)' immediately following the words in addition to', and by inserting im- mediately following the words 'which may be placed in such grades' a comma and the fol- lowing: 'and (II) two hundred and forty examiner positions under section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat. 244; 5 U.S.C. 1010) which may be placed In grade 16 and nine such positions which may be placed in grade 17'. "(c) Section 604(d) (3) of the Federal Em- ployees Pay Act of 1945, as amended (5 U.S.C. 944(c) (3) ). Is amended to read as follows: " '(3) All rates shall be computed to the nearest cent, counting one-half cent and over as a whole cent.'. "Postal field service employees "SEc. 104. Section 1. of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking out the period at the end of such section and Ingest- ing in lieu thereof It semicolon and the fol- lowing: " ' "revenue unit" means that amount of revenue of a post office from mail and special service transactions which is equal to the average sum of postal rates and fees received by the Department during the fiscal year for 1,000 pieces of originating mail and special service transactions determined in accord- ance with section 2331 of this title.'. "Ser. 105. Section '102 of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: " '1 702. Classes of poet offices "'(a) Effective at the beginning of each fiscal year the Postmaster General shall di- vide post offices Into four classes on the basis of the revenue units of each office for the second preceding fiscal year. He shall place in the first class those post offices having 950 or more revenue units. He shall place in the second class those post offices having 190 or more revenue units, but fewer than 950 revenue units. He shall place in the third class those post offices having 36 or more revenue units, but fewer than 190 rev- enue units. He shall place in the fourth class those post offices having fewer than 36 revenue units. " '(b) The Postmaster General shall ex- clude from the revenue credited to a poet office for the purposes of this section money received at that office for? '(1) setting meters for patrons beyond the area served by the office unless author- ized by the Department; " '(2) stamps, stamped envelopes, and postal cards sold in large or unusual quan- tities to be used in mailing matter at other offices; and " (3) stamps. stamped envelopes, and postal cards sold for mailing matter diverted from other offices and mailing of matter so diverted without stamps affixed. " '(c) Whenever unusual conditions pre- vail at a post office of the fourth class, the Postmaster General may advance such office to the appropriate class based on his esti- mate of the number of revenue units which the office will have during the succeeding twelve months. Any office so advanced need not be relegated to a lower class before the end of the second fiscal year after the ad- vancement. At that time, the office shall be assigned to the appropriate class in accord- ance with subsections (a) and (b) of this section.' "SEc. 106. Section 704 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by deleting 'of the first, second, or third class' appearing there- in, and inserting in lieu thereof '(other than one for which the postmaster furnishes quar- ters, equipment, and fixtures on an allow- ance basis) '. "Sec. 107. Subsection (b) (1) of secton 2102 of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: " '(1) for post offices at which the post- master does not furnish quarters on an allowance basic'. "SEC. 108. t a) Section 3501 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by inserting a new subsection (c) following subsection (b) as follows: "'(c) The Postmaster General shall deter- mine and, effective at the beginning of the first pay period In each calendar year, shill adjust the rankings of all positions for whi:)11 the number of annual revenue unite of a post office or its class is a relevant factor of the ranking, using the revenue units of the preceding fiscal year and the class in which the office will be placed at the beginning of the next fiscal year. The Postmaster Genetal also may adjust rankings of such positioas at other times of the year based upon su a- stantial changes in service conditions.'. "(b) Chapter 45 of title 39, United States Code, is amended as follows: "(1) In subsection (c) of section 3513? "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST OFFICE CLERIC. RP-4 ) '; and "(B) Add the following new sentence :sr the end of paragraph (1): 'This office has fewer than 190 revenue units annually.'. "(2) In subsection (e) of section 3516? "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POS'.7- MASTER. ( RP-18 ) "(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approx.- mately $1,700' in the second sentence of pars- graph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'ap- proximately 40 revenue units annually'. "(3) /n subsection (b) of section 3517-- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'foss- MASTER. (KP-20) "(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi- mately $4.700' in the second sentence cf paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'ap- proximately 110 revenue units annually'. "(4) In subsection (b) of section 3518-- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST - MASTER. (RP-22) "(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi- mately $6,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 140 revenue units annually'. "(5) In subsection (b) of section 3519-- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS- SISTANT POSTMASTER. ( RP-24 ) '; and "(B) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi.' mately $63,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 1,490 revenue units an- nually'. "(6) In subsection (c) of section 3519? "(A) Change of catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. ( RP-25 ) ; "(B) Delete 'second class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (I); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi- mately $16,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 380 revenue units annually'. "(7) Insubsection (b) of section 3520? "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. ( KP-27 .; "(B) Delete Sirst class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17269 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi- mately $63,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 1,490 revenue units annually'. "(8) In subsection (b) of section 3521- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. (Kr-29)'; "(B) Delete 'first class' appearing in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $129,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 3,060 revenue units annually'. "(9) In subsection (b) of section 3522- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. (KP-31. '; "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1) ; and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $314,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 7,450 revenue units annually'. "(10) In subsection (b) of section 3523- (A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. (KP-33 ) '; "(B) Delete 'first class' appearing in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete the second sentence of para- graph (1) and insert in lieu thereof: 'This office has approximately 110 employees, ap- proximately 14,350 revenue units annually, 13 government-owned vehicle units, one classified station and 42 carrier routes within its jurisdiction?. "(11) In subsection (b) of section 8524- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS- SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-35>';and "(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $2,700,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and Insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 64,000 revenue units annually'. "(12) In subsection (c) of section 3524- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. (KP-36)'; "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $1,000,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 23,700 revenue units annually'. "(13) In subsection (a) of section 3525- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS- SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-37) ; and "(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $8,460,000' In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 200,000 revenue units annually'. "(14) In subsection (b) of section 3525- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. (KP-38) '; "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $2,700,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 64,000 revenue units annually'. "(15) In subsection (a) of section 3526- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS SISTANT POSTMASTER. (Kr-3D>'; and "(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $16,900,- 000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 400,000 revenue units annually'. "(16) In subsection (b) of section 3526- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'posr- MASTER. (KP-40>'; "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $4,470,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 106,000 revenue units annually'. "(17) In subsection (b) of section 3527- " (A) Change the catchline to read 'AssIST- ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-42 ) '; and "(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $48,000,- 000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 1,000,000 revenue units annually'. "(18) In subsection (c) of section 3527- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. (KP-43) "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $8,460,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 200,000 revenue units annually'. "(19) In subsection (b) of section 3528- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'ASSIST- ANT POSTMASTER. (Kr-45)'; and "(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $140,000,- 000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 2,500,000 revenue units annually'. "(20) In subsection (c) of section 3528- "(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST- MASTER. (KP-48) '; "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $16,900- 000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 400,000 revenue units annually'. "(21) In section 3529- "(21) Change the catchline immediately preceding paragraph (1) to read 'POST- MASTER. ( KP-47 ) ; "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $48,000- 000' in the second sentence of paragraph ( 1 ) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 1,000,000 revenue units annually'. "(22) In section 3630- "(A) Change the catchline immediately preceding paragraph (1) to read 'POST- MASTER. ( KP-48 ) '; "(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and "(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $140,- 000,000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 2,500,000 revenue units annually'. "SEc. 109. Section 3642(a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows- " ' (a) There is established a basic com- pensation schedule for positions in the postal field service which shall be known as the Postal Field Service Schedule and for which the symbol shall be "PFS". Except as pro- vided in sections 3543 and 3644 of this title, basic compensation shall be paid to all em- ployees in accordance with such schedule. Postal field service schedule "Pies 10 11 12 13 14_ _ 15 16 l7_ 18 19 20 1 $3, 945 4, 270 4, 615 5, 0(10 5, 345 5, 735 6, 140 6, 650 7, 190 7,t30 8,650 0, 570 10, 575 11,665 12, 885 14, 240 15, 755 17, 450 19, 345 21, 445 2 $4,070 4, 410 4, 770 5, 165 6, 525 5, 926 6,345 6,870 7,430 8,005 8,945 9, 895 10, 940 12,065 13, 330 14, 735 16, 305 18,060 20, 020 22, 105 3 $4, 205 4,550 4, 025 5,330 5,705 6, 115 6, 550 7,090 7, 670 8,160 9, 240 10, 220 11, 305 12, 470 13, 775 15, 230 16,855 18, 670 20, 695 22, 945 Per annum rates and steps 4 $4,315 4, 690 5,080 5, 495 5,885 6,105 6, 755 7, 310 7, 910 8, 625 9, 535 10, 545 11, 670 12,875 14, 220 15, 725- 17, 405 19, 280 21, 370 23, 695 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 to No ....L.. cu. ? LIN -a to CO 00 G0 I CO 0 0 IA 0 00 01 CO c0 CO I . Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 $4, 465 $4, 595 $4, 725 $4, 855 $5, 115 $5, 245 85, 375 4,830 4, 970 5, 110 1, 250 6, 530 5, 670 5, 810 5, 235 5, 390 5, 545 5, 700 6,010 6, 165 6, 320 6, 660 5,825 5, 990 6, 155 6, 485 6, 650 6,815 0,065 6, 245 6, 425 6,905 6, 965 7, 145 7,325 6, 495 6, 685 6, 875 7,065 7, 445 7,635 7,821 6, 960 7, 165 7, 370 7, 575 7, 985 8, 100 7, 530 7, 750 7, 970 8, 190 8, 630 8, 150 8,390 8, 630 8,870 9,350 8, 890 9, 155 9, 420 0,685 10, 215 9,830 10, 125 10, 420 10, 715 11,305 50,870 19,195 11,520 11,840 12,495 12,035 12,400 12, 765 13, 130 13,860 13, 280 13, 685 14,050 14, 495 15, 305 14, 665 15, 110 15, 555 16,000 16, 890 16, 220 16, 715 17, 210 17, 705 18, 695 17, 955 18, 605 19, 055 19, 605 20, 705 15,800 20,500 25,010 21,720 22, 940 22, 045 22, 720 23, 395 24, 070 24, 445 ' ? "SEC. 110. Section 3543(a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as f ollows- " '(a) There is established a basic corn- pensation schedule which shall be known as the Rural Carrier Schedule and for which the symbol shall be "RCS". " ' Rural carrier schedule " Per annum rates and steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Carriers in rural de- livery service: Fixed compensation per annum Compensation per mile per annum for each mile up to 30 miles of route_ _ For each mile of route over 30 miles $2,240 82 25 $2,345 84 25 $2,450 86 25 $2,555 88 25 $2,660 90 25 $2,765 92 25 $2,870 94 25 $2,975 96 25 $3, 080 98 26 $3,185 100 25 $3,290 102 25 $3,395 10,1 25'. "SEc. 111. (a) Section 3644 of title 39, United States Code, is amended, to read as follows: "1 3544. Fourth Class Office Schedule "'(a) There is established a basic com- pensation schedule which shall be known as the Fourth Class Office Schedule and for which the symbol shall be "FOS", for post- masters in post offices of the fourth class which is based on the revenue units of the post office for the preceding fiscal year. Basic compensation shall be paid to post- masters in post offices of the fourth class in accordance with this schedule. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 11 cvenue units 1 2 $3,894 2,800 2,1174 30 but has than _ 24 but lessi than 30_ 18 hut less than 24_ _ _ 769 _ 3,456 _ 2877 12 but leas than l4_ 2, 2,91 2.331 II lot less than 12 I 1,828 1,880 lass than 8 I 1 313 1,365 " 'Fourth-class office seheduk Per annual rata, and lapis 3 I 4 I 6 6 I i 7 8 9 I le 11 12 14.01e 34,144 $4,269 14.394 $4,519 14,1144 I $4,76U $4,804j $6,019 $6, 144 3, 711 3, 880 3.041 4, 084 4,175 4.215) 4,405i4,528 4.835 4,750 3.171 3,188 3.28.5 , 3.382 3,459 3,118 3,613 : 3.710 3,847 3.944 2,104 2,477 '2,650 2,152:3 i 2,698 2,789 2,842 I 2.915 2, 988 3,041 1,722 1,784 1,83e 1 1,81414 , 1,940 1.992 2,044 2,005 2, 148 2.200 1,3117 1,439 1, 481 1,523 I 1,511.5 1.007 1,6411 1,891 I 1,733 1,775 "'II)) The basic salary of postmasters in fourth-class post offices shall be readjusted for changes in revenue units at the start of the first pay period after January 1 of each year. When a post office is restored to a rev- enue unit category held by It prior to rele- gation to a lower revenue unit category, the postmaster's basic salary may be adjusted to the highest salary step held by him when the post office was in the higher revenue unit category. In all other cases. In adjusting a postmaster's basic salary under this section. the basic salary shall be fixed at the lowest step which is higher than the basic salary received by the postmaster at the end of the preceding fiscal year. If there is no such step the basic salary shall be fixed at the highest step for the adjusted revenue units of the office. Each increase in basic salary because of change in revenue units shall be deemed the equivalent of a step increase un- der section 3552 of this title and the waiting period, for purposes of advancement to the next step, shall begin on the date of ad- justment. " '(c) The basic salaries of postmasters at newly established offices of the fourth class shall be fixed at the lowest salary rate. Whenever unusual conditions prevail at any post office of the fourth class the Postmaster General may advance such office to the ap- propriate category based on his estimate of the number of revenue units which the of- fice will have during the succeeding twelve months. Any fourth-class office advanced to the appropriate category pursuant to this subsection shall not be reduced in category until the start of the first pay period after January 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which It was so advanced. at which time it shall be assigned to the category indicated by the revenue units for the preceding fiscal year. " '(d) Persons who perform the duties of postmaster at post offices of the fourth class where there is a vacancy or during the ab- sence of the postmaster on sick or annual leave, or leave without pay, shall be paid the same basic salary to which they would have been entitled If regularly appointed as postmaster. " '(e) The Postmaster General may allow to postmasters in fourth-class post offices ad- ditional compensation for separating serv- ices and for unusual conditions during a portion of the year, in lieu of an allowance for clerical services for this purpose. " '(f) At seasonal post offices of the fourth class, the Postmaster General may authorize the payment of the basic salary prorated over the pay periods the office is open for business during the fiscal year. " '(g) Where the revenue units of a post office of the third class for each of two con- secutive fiscal years are less than 36, or where in any fiscal year the revenue units are less than 33, the post office shall be relegated to the fourth class and the basic salary of the postmaster shall be fixed In the manner pro- vided in subsection (b) of this section. -(h) When required by the Postmaster General a postmaster at a fourth-class office shall, and any other postmaster in PFS level 5 when permitted by the Postmaster Gen- eral may, furnish quarters, fixtures, and equipment for an office on an allowance basis. The allowance for this purpose shall be an amount equal to 15 per centum of the Miele compensation for the postmaster at the office.' "Gal As of the effective date of this section, the Postmaster General shall place the posi- tion of each postmaster in a fourth-class office in the appropriate revenue units cate- gory of the Fourth-class Office Schedule (FOS) determined on the basis of revenue units for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1063. The Postmaster General shall assign each such postmaster to the lowest step of the appropriate revenue units category which will provide him compensation not less than 110 per centum of the compensa- tion to which he would otherwise be entitled under FOS II (as it existed immediately prior to the effective date of this section). If there Is no such step or category, the postmaster shall be paid compensation at the rate of 110 per centem of the compensation to which he would otherwise be entitled under FOS II las it existed immediately prior to the effective date of this section). a(c) If changes In the gross receipts cate- gory or changes in salary step would occur on the effective date of this section (with- out regard to the enactment of this section) . such changes shall be deemed to have oc- curred prior to any action taken under sub- section its) of this section. "Sec_ 112. (a) Subsection (a) of section 6007 of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: (a) The Postmaster General shall pay to persons, other than special delivery messengers at post offices of the first class, for making delivery of special delivery mall such fees as may be established by him not in excess of the special delivery fee.'. "(b) Section 2009 of title 39, United States Code. is amended by deleting 'at any price lees than eight cents per piece' and insert- ing in lieu thereof 'at any price less than the fees established pursuant to section 6007( a ) of this title.. "Sac. 113. Section 3560 of title 39, United States Code, Is amended- (I) by striking out 'gross receipts' in subsection ( a) (3) and inserting in lieu thereof 'revenue unit'; and '(2) by striking out 'gross receipts' in sub- section (f) (1) and inserting in lieu thereof 'revenue unit'. "sec. 114. (a) Section 3552(a) of title 39, United States Code, Ls aznended to read as follows : " 't a ( 1 ) Each employee subject to the Postal Field Service Schedule, each em- ployee subject to the Rural Carrier Schedule. and each employee subject to the Fourth Class Office Schedule who has not reached the highest step for his position shall be ad- vanced successively to the next higher step as follows: " '(A) to steps 2. 3. 4, 5, 6, and 7-at the beginning of the first pay period following the completion of fifty-two calendar weeks of satisfactory service; and " '(B) to steps 8 and above-at the be- ginning of the first pay period following the completion of one hundred and fifty-six cal- endar weeks of satisfactory service. A li,gud 3 " '(2) The receipt of an equivalent inereas, during any of the waiting periods specifie( in this subsection shall cause a new fu) waiting period to commence for furthe.7 ste: increases.' "(b) Section 3552 of title 39, United State Code, is further amended by adding the fol lowing new subsection at the end thereof " '(d) Notwithstanding the provisio as c subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this seetior the Postmaster General is authorized to ad vance any employee in PFS level 9 or beim who- " '( 1) was promoted to a higher level be tween July 9, 1960. and October 13, 1962 and " '121 is senior with respect to total posts service to an employee in his own post offic promoted to the same position since Octo ber 13, 1962, and is at a step in the level be low the step of the junior employee. Any increase under the provisions of thi subsection shall not constitute an equlvalen increase and credit earned prior to adjust ment under this subsection for advanceinen to the next step shall be retained.'. "Sac. 115. (a) Section 711 of title 3c. United States Code, Is repealed. "(b) The table of contents of chapter 7 o title 39. United States Code, is amended deleting " '711. Method of determining gross receipts. "Sac. 116. The basic compensation of eacl employee subject to the Postal Field Servic Schedule or the Rural Carrier Schedule im mediately prior to the effective date of thi section shall be determined as follows: "(1) Each employee shall be assigned t( the same numerical step for his pos:tioi which he had attained immediately prior 1, such effective date. If changes in lave o steps would otherwise occur on such effeutiv, date without regard to enactment of thi. Act, such changes shall be deemed to sale occurred prior to conversion. "(2) If the existing basic compensation is greater than the rate to which the employee is converted under paragraph (1) of this sec- tion, the employee shall be placed in the lowest step which exceeds his basic corn:len- sation. If the existing basic compensation exceeds the maximum step of his posiaion, his existing basic compensation shall be es- tablished as his basic compensation. "Employees in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration "Sac. 117. (a) Section 4103 of title 38, United States Code, relating to the appcint- ment and annual salaries of certain staff positions in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, is amended to read as follows: " '; 4103. Office of the Chief Medical Direstor " .(a) The Office of the Chief Medical Di- rector shall consist of the following- -(1) The Chief Medical Director, who shall be the Chief of the Department of Medi- cine and Surgery and shall be directly re- sponsible to the Administrator for the opera- tions of the Department. He shall be a quali- fied doctor of medicine, appointed by the Ad- ministrator. " '(2) The Deputy Chief Medical Director, who shall be the principal assistant of the Chief Medical Director. Ile shall be a quali- fied doctor If medicine, appointed by the Administrator. "'(3) Not to exceed five Assistant Chief Medical Directors, who shall be appointed by the Administrator upon the recommendation of the Chief Medical Director. One Assistant Chief Medical Director shall be a quail led doctor of dental surgery or dental medicine who shall be directly responsible to the Chief Medical Director for the operation of the Dental Service. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18_.? CIA-RDR6V0403R000500050001-9 17271 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOU " '(4) Such Medical Directors as may be appointed by the Administrator, upon the recommendation of the Chief Medical Direc- tor, to suit the needs of the Department. A Medical Director shall be either a qualified doctor of medicine or a qualified doctor of dental surgery or dental medicine. "'(5) A Director of Nursing Service, who shall be a qualified registered nurse, ap- pointed by the Administrator, and who shall be responsible to the Chief Medical Director for the operation of the Nursing Service. " (6) A Chief Pharmacist and a Chief Die- titian, appointed by the Administrator. " '(7) Such other personnel and employees as may be authorized by this chapter, " '(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), any appointment under this section shall be for a period of four years, with re- appointment permissible for successive like periods, except that persons so appointed or reappointed shall be subject to removal by the Administrator for cause. "'(c) The Administrator may designate a member of the Chaplain Service of the Vet- erans' Administration as Director, Chaplain Service, for a period of two years, subject to removal by the Administrator for cause. Redesignation under this subsection may be made for successive like periods. An individ- ual designated as Director, Chaplain Service, shall at the end of his period of service as Director revert to the position, grade, and status which he held immediately prior to being designated Director, Chaplain Service, and all service as Director, Chaplain Service, shall be creditable as service in the former position.'. "(b) The table of contents of chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out "'4103. Appointments and compensation.' and inserting in lieu thereof: "'4103. Office of the Chief Medical Direc- tor.'. "(c) Section 2 of the Act a July 31, 1894, as amended (5 U.S.C. 62), shall not apply to any individual appointed, before January 1, 1964, as Chief Medical Director under section 4103 of title 38, United States Code; but section 212 of the Act of June 30, 1932, as amended (5 U.S.C. 59a), shall apply, in accordance with its terms, to any such indi- vidual. "SEc. 118. Section 4107 of title 38, United States Code, relating to grades and pay scales for certain positions within the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, is amended to read as follows: "'1 4107. Grades and pay scales "'(a) The per annum full-pay scale or ranges for positions provided in section 4103 of this title, other than Chief Medical Di- rector and Deputy Chief Medical Director, shall be as follows: "'Section 4103 schedule "'Assistant Chief Medical Director, $24,500. "'Medical Director, $21,445 minimum to $21,445 maximum. "'Director of Nursing Service, $16,460 min- imum to $21,590 maximum. "'Director, Chaplain Service, $16,460 min- imum to $21,590 maximum. "'Chief Pharmacist, $16,460 minimum to $21,590 maximum. "'Chief Dietitian, $16,460 $21,590 maximum. "(b) (1) The grades and per annum full- pay ranges for positions provided in para- graph (1) of section 4104 of this title shall be as follows: "'Physician and dentist schedule "'Director grade, $18,935 minimum to $24,175 maximum. minimum to "'Executive grade, $17,655 minimum to $23,190 maximum. "'Chief grade, $18,460 minimum to $21,- 590 maximum. "'Senior grade, $14,170 minimum to $18,- 680 maximum. "'Intermediate grade, $12,075 minimum to $15,855 maximum. "'Full grade, $10,250 minimum to $13,445 maximum. "'Associate grade, $8,650 minimum to $11,- 305 maximum. "'Nurse schedule "'Assistant Director grade, $14,170 mini- mum to $18,580 maximum. "'Chief grade, $12,075 minimum to $15,855 maximum. "'Senior grade, $10,250 minimum to $13,- 445 maximum. "'Intermediate grade, $8,650 minimum to $11,305 maximum. "'Full grade, $7,220 minimum to $9,425 maximum. "'Associate grade, $6,315 minimum to $8,205 maximum. "'Junior grade, $5,505 minimum to $7,170 maximum, "'(2) No person may hold the director grade unless he is serving as a director of a hospital, dornicilary, center, or outpatient clinic (independent). No person may hold the executive grade unless he holds the posi- tion of chief of staff at a hospital, center, or outpatient clinic (independent), or the posi- tion of clinic director at an outpatient clinic, or comparable position.'. "Foreign service officers; staff officers and employees "SEC. 119. Section 412 of the Foreign Serv- ice Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867), is amended to read as follows: "'Foreign service officers "'SEC. 412. There shall be ten classes of Foreign Service officers, including the classes of career ambassador and of career minister. The per annum salary of a career ambassador shall be at the rate provided by law for level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule. The per annum salary of a career minister shall be at the rate provided by law for level V of such schedule. The per annum salaries of Foreign Service officers within each of the other classes shall be as follows: "'Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 $22, 650 18, 296 14, 860 12,075 9, 945 8, 295 7, 010 5,050 $23, 440 18, 930 15,375 12, 405 10, 290 8, 580 7,245 6,250 $24, 600 19, 565 15,890 12, 916 10, 635 8, 865 7,480 0,450 $20, 200 16, 406 13, 335 10, 980 9, 150 7,715 6, 650 $20, 836 16, 920 13, 755 11,325 9, 435 7, 950 0,850 $21, 470 07,435 14, 171 11, 670 9, 720 8, 185 7,050 $22, 105 17,950 14, 595 12, 015 10, 005 8, 420 7, 250'. "SEc. 120. Subsection (a) of section 415 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 870(a) ) is amended to read as follows: "'(a) There shall be ten classes of For- eign Service staff officers and employees, re- f erred to hereafter as staff officers and em- ployees. The per annum salaries of such staff officers and employees within each class shall be as follows: 'Class 1 $14,860 515,375 $16, 890 $16, 406 $16, 020 Class 2 12,075 12,491 12,915 13,315 13,71i Class 3 9,945 30, 290 10, 635 10, 980 11,325 Class 4 8,295 8,580 8,865 9,150 0,435 Class 5 7,480 7,735 7,900 8,245 8,500 Class 6 6,755 6,080 7,205 7,430 7, 651 Class 7 0,205 6, 410 6, 611 6,820 7, 025 Class 8 5,490 5, 676 5,860 6,045 6,230 1 Class 9 0,010 5,175 5,340 5,505 5,670 1 Class 10 4,480 4,630 4,780 4,930 5,080 1 $17, 436 14, 175 11,670 9,720 6,755 7,880 7,530 11,415 5,831 ,5, 230 $17,950 14, 595 12, 015 10, 005 9, 010 8,105 7,435 6,600 6, 000 5,380 $18, 465 1.5, 015 12,360 10,250 9,265 8,330 7,640 6, 785 6, 165 5,530 $18,980 15, 436 12, 705 10, 575 9,520 8,555 7,845 5,970 6,330 5, 680 $19, 495 15, 855 11,006 10,860 0,771 8,780 8,050 7, 156 6,491 5,830'. "SEc, 121. Foreign Service officers, Reserve officers, and Foreign Service staff officers and employees who are entitled to receive basic compensation immediately prior to the effec- tive date of this section at one of the rates provided by section 412 or 415 of the Foreign Service Act of 1916, shall receive basic com- pensation, on and after such effective date, at the rate of their class determined to be appropriate by the Secretary of State. "Agricultural stabilization and conservation county committee employees "SEc. 122. The rates of compensation of persons employed by the county committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b) ) shall be increased by amounts equal, as nearly as may be prac- ticable, to the increases provided by section 102 of this Act for corresponding rates of compensation in the appropriate schedule or scale of pay. "Miscellaneous provision "Sac. 123. Section 504 of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C. 1173) is amended by adding at the end there- of the following new subsection: "'(d) The rate of basic compensation, es- tablished under this section, and received by any officer or employee immedately prior to the effective date of a statutory increase in the compensation schedules of the salary systems specified in subsec (a) shall be Initially adjusted on the Motive date of such new compensation schedules in accord- ance with conversion rules and regulations prescribed by the President or by such agency or agencies as he may designate.' "SEc. 124. Subsection (b) of the first sec- tion of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide retirement, clerical assistants, and free mail- ing privileges to former Presidents of the United States, and for other purposes', ap- proved August 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 838; 3 U.S.C. note fol. 102), is amended by striking out '$50,000' and inserting in lieu thereof '$65,000'. "Absorption of costs "SEc. 125. (a) The cost of not less than 10 per centum of the aggregate amount of the increases In compensation provided by this title for the fiscal year 1985 shall be ab- sorbed by the departments, agencies, estab- lishments, and corporations in the executive branch; and no amount beyond the addi- tional sum for such compensation increases proposed in the budget for the fiscal year 1965 is authorized to be appropriated by any provision of this Act. The total amount of such absorption shall be alloocated by the Bureau of the Budget among such depart- ments, agencies, establishments, and corpora- tions in such manner and to such extent as Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 Release...20,0MM', CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17972 Approved For wrquKtssioNAL RECORD ?HOUSE August 3 the Director of the Bureau of the Budget deems appropriate in the light of their es- sential functions. "Iets) Pursuant to the objective of this sec- tion. heads of the executive branch activities concerned are directed to review with metic- ulous care each vacancy resulting from voluntary resignation, retirement, or death and to determine whether the duties of the position can be reassigned to other employees or whether the position can be abolished without seriously affecting the execution of essential functions. "(c) Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be held or considered to require (1) the separation from the service of any individual by reduction in force or other personnel action or (2) the placing of arty individual in a leave-without-pay status. ''TITLE II-FEDERAL LEC/SLATIVE SALARIES "Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the 'Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964. "Ste. 202. (a) Each officer or employee in or under the legislative branch of the Gov- ernment whose rate of compensation is in- creased by section 5 of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1946 shall be paid additional com- pensation in an amount equal to the greater of the following amounts, as applicable: "(1 ) an amount equal to 3 ta per centum of his ETOSS rate of compensation (basic com- pensation plus additional compensation au- thorized by law) in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this section plus 1 per centum of such gross rate for each whole multiple, or part of a multiple, of $500 basic compensation; or "(2) an amount equal to 5 per centtim of such ernes rate. "(b) The total annual compensation in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this section of each officer or employee of the House of Representa(ives. whore compen- sation is disbursed by the Clerk of the house of Representatives and is not increased by reason of any other provision of this title, shall be increased by an amount which is equal to the amount of she increase provided by subsection (a) of this section in that gross rate which is nearest in amount to the total annual compensation of such officer or employee. "(c) Each of the limitations on gross rate per thousand and gross rate per hour per person provided by applicable law on the effective date of this section with respect to the folding of speeches and pamphlets for the House or Representatives shall be in- Creased by 7 per centum. The amount of each increase under this subsection shall be computed to the nearest cent, counting one- half cent and over ass whole cent. "(d) The additional compensation pro- vided by this section shall be considered a part of basic compensation for the purposes of the Civil Service Retirement Act (5 U.S.C. 2251 and the following). "(e) The basic compensation of each em- ployee In the office of a Senator is hereby adjusted, effective on the first day of the month following the date of enactment of this Act, to the lowest multiple of $60 which will provide a gross rate of compensation not less than the gross rate such employee was receiving immediately prior thereto, except that the foregoing provisions of this subsec- tion shall not apply in the case of any em- ployee if on or before the fifteenth day fol- lowing the date of enactment of this Act, the Senator by whom such employee Is employed notifies the disbursing office of the Senate in writing that he does not wish such provisions to apply to such employee. No employee whose basic compensation is adjusted under this subsection shall receive any additional compensation under subsection (a) for any period prior to the effective date of such ad- justment during which such employee was employed in the office of the Senator by whom he is employed on the first day of the month following the enactment of this Act. No additional compensation shall be paid to any person under subsection (a) for any period prior to the first day of the month following the date of enactment of this Act during which such person was employed In the office of a Senator (other than a Senator by whom he is employed on such day) un- less on or before the fifteenth day following the date of enactment of this Act such Sena- tor notifies the disbursing office of the Sen- ate in writing that he wishes such employee to receive such additional compensation for such period. In any case in which, at the expiration of the time within which a Sena- tor may give notice under this subsection, such Senator is deceased such notice shall be deemed to have been given. " f ) Notwithstanding the provision refer- red to in subsection (g), the rates of gross compensation of the Secretory for the Ma- jority of the Senate. the Secretary for the Minority of the Senate. the Official Reporters of Debates of the Senate, the Parliamen- t:Irian of the Senate, the Senior Counsel In the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate. and the Chief Clerk of the Senate are hereby increased by an amount which is equal to the amount of the increase which would be provided by subsection (a) of this section in that grass rate determined with- out regard to the provisions referred to in subsection ( g) of this section which is near- est in amowit to the total annual compensa- tion of such officer or employee. "(g) The paragraph imposing limitations on basic and gross compensation of officers and employees of the Senate appearing under the heading "SENATE" In the Legislative Ap- propriation Act, 1956. as amended (74 Stat. 304: Public Law 116 568), Is amended by striking out '$18,880' and inserting in lieu t h ereof '$22,945'. "(h) The limitation on gross rate per hour per person provided by applicable law on the effective date of this section with respect to the folding of speeches and pamphlets for the Senate is hereby increased by 7 per centum. The amount of such increase shall be computed to the nearest cent, counting one-half cent and over as a whole cent. The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to employees whcee compen- sation is subject to such limitation. "( I) The gross rate of compensation of the Postinaeter of the Senate shall be $18.420, and the gross rate of compensation of the Asaistant Postmaster of the Senate shall be 814.570. The provisions of section 106 of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act. 1963, shall not hereafter apply to employees refer- red to In this subsection. "(j) Section 202(e) of the Legislative Re- orgstnization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 72a ( e) ) , is amended- 1) by striking out 18,880' where it first. appears in such subsection and' insert- ing in lieu thereof 'the highest amount which, together with additional compen- sation authorized by law, will not exceed the maximum rate authorised by the Classi- fication Act of 1949, as amended.'; and "(2) by striking out '$8.880' at the second place where it appears in such subsection and inserting In lieu thereof 'the highest amount which, together with additional com- pensation authorized by law, will not exceed the maximum rate authorized by the Classi- fication Act of 1949, as amended'. "(k) (1) This subsection is enacted as an exercise of the rule making power of the House of Representatives with full recog- nition of the constitutional right of the House of Representatives to change the rule amended by this subsection at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as In the case of any other rule of the House of Representatives. "(2) Clause 28(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended? "(A) by striking out '$8,880' where it first appears In such clause and inserting .n lieu thereof 'the highest amount which, tcgether with additional compensation authorized by law, will riot exceed the maximum rate au- thorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended,'; and "(B) by striking mit '$8,880' at the 5 econd place where It appears in such clause and Inserting ia lieu thereof 'the highest amount Which, together with additional compensa- tion authorized by law, will not exceed the maximum rate authorized by the Classifica- tion Act of 1949, as amended." "Sec. 20-3. (a) The compensation of the Comptroller General of the United :States shall be at the rate of $30,000 per annum. "(b) The compensation of the Assistant Comptroller General of the United States shall be at the rate of $28,500 per annum. "(c) The compensation of the General Counsel of the United States General Ac- counting Office, the Librarian of Congress, the Public Printer, and the Architect Cf the Capitol shell be at the rate of $27,00-) per annum. "(dl The compensation of the Deputy Li- brarian of Congress. the Deputy Public Printer, and the Assistant Architect o.! the Capitol shall be at the rate of $25,500 per annum. "(e) The compensation of the Second. As- sistant Architect of the Capitol shall he at the rate of e23.500 per annum. "(f) The compensation of the Chapla.n of the House cf Representatives shall be at the rate of $12,500 per annum. "g) The compensation of the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and the Legislative Counsel of the Senate shall be at :..he rate of $27,500 per annum. "(h) The compensation of the Chaplain of the Senate shall be at the rate of $15,00C per annum. "Sec. 204. Section 601(a) of the Legisla- tive Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 31), Is amended to read as follews: " '(a) The compensation of Senators. Representatives in Congress, and the Resi- dent Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of $30,000 per annum esch; and the compensation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be at the rate of $43,000 per annum.' "Sec. 205. No officer or employee sub,)ect to section 202(a) or 202(b) of this title shall receive, by reason of any provision of this title, an increase in gross rate of compensa- tion (basic compensation plus additional compensation authorized by law), or in total annual compensation, which is in excess of the amount of the increase in basic com- pensation provided by the amendment made by section 102(a) of title I of this Act for positions In grade 18 of the General Schedole of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. "T/TLE III--TEDERAL EXECUTIVE SALARIES "Stec. 301. This title may be cited as the 'Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964'. "Sec. 302. There is hereby established Mr offices and positions tr.; which section 303 of this title applies a basic compensation sched- ule, to be known as the 'Federal Executive Salary Schedule', which shall be divided into five salary levels. "SEc. 303. ) a ) Level I of the Federal Exec's- tive Salary Scnedule shall apply to the fdl- lowing offices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $35,000: "Ill Secretary of State. "(2) Secretary of the Treasury. "(3) Secretary of Defense. "(4) Attorney General. "(5) Postmaster General. "(6) Secretary of the Interior. "(7) Secretary of Agriculture. "(8) Secretary of Commerce. "(9) Secretary of Labor. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 .1964 Approved Feardeas.e 2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 RESSIONAL REtORD ? HOUSE 17273 "(10) Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. "(b) Level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule shall apply to the following offices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $30,000: "(1) Deputy Secretary of Defense. "(2) Under Secretary of State. "(3) Administrator, Agency for Interna- tional Development. "(4) Administrator of the National Aero- nautics and Space Administration. "(5) Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. "(6) Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. "(7) Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. "(8) Chairman, Atomic Energy Commis- sion. "(9) Chairman, Council of Economic Ad- visers. "(10) Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. "(11) Director of the Bureau of the Budget. "(12) Director of the Office of Science and Technology. "(13) Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. "(14) Director of the United States In- formation Agency. "(15) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, so long as the position is held by the present in- cumbent: Provided, That thereafter the posi- tion shall be placed in level III. "(16) Director of Central Intelligence. "(17) Secretary of the Air Force. "(18) Secretary of the Army. "(19) Secretary of the Navy. "(c) Level III of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule shall apply to the following offices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $28,500: "(1) Deputy Attorney General. "(2) Solicitor General of the United States. "(3) Deputy Postmaster General. "(4) Under Secretary of Agriculture. "(5) Under Secretary of Commerce. "(6) Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation. "(7) Under Secretary of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare. "(8) Under Secretary of the Interior. "(9) Under Secretary of Labor. "(10) Under Secretary of State for Politi- cal Affairs or Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. "(11) Under Secretary of the Treasury. "(12) Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs. "(13) Administrator of General Services. "(14) Administrator of the Small Business Administration. "(15) Deputy Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. "(16) Deputy Administrator, Agency for International Development. "(17) Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board. "(18) Chairman of the United States Civil Service Commission. "(19) Chairman, Federal Communications Commission. "(20) Chairman, Board of Directors, Fed- eral Deposit Insurance Corporation. "(21) Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. "(22) Chairman, Federal Power Commis- sion. "(23) Chairman, Federal Trade Commis- sion. "(24) Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission. "(25) Chairman, National Labor Relations Board. "(26) Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission. "(27) Chairman, Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. No. 149-18 "(28) Chairman, National Mediation Board. "(29) Chairman, Railroad Retirement Board. "(30) Chairman, Federal Maritime Com- mission. "(31) Comptroller of the Currency. "(32) Commissioner of Internal Revenue. "(33) Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense. "(34) Deputy Administrator of the Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration. "(35) Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget. "(36) Deputy Director of Central Intelli- gence. "(37) Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. "(38) Director of the Peace Corps. "(39) Director of Selective Service, so long as the position is held by the present. incum- bent: Provided, That thereafter the position shall be placed in Level IV.. "(40) Chief Medical Director in the De- partment of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration. "(41) Director of the National Science Foundation. "(42) Deputy Administrator of the Hous- ing and Home Finance Agency. "(43) President of the Export-Import Bank of Washington. "(14) Members, Atomic Energy Commis- (.45) Members, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. "(46) Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Jus- tice, so long is the position is held by the present incumbent: Provided, That there- after the position shall be placed in Level IV. "(d) Level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule shall apply to the following offices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $27,000: "(1) Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State. "(2) Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. "(3) Deputy Administrator of General Services. "(4) Associate Administrator of the Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration. "(5) Assistant Administrators, Agency for International Development (6) . "(6) Regional Assistant Administrators, Agency for International Development (4). "(7) Under Secretary of the Air Force. "(8) Under Secretary of the Army. "(9) Under Secretary of the Navy. "(10) Deputy Under Secretaries of State (2) . "(11) Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture (3)? "(12) Assistant Secretaries of Commerce (4) . "(13) Assistant Secretaries of Defense (7). "(14) Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force (3) . "(15) Assistant Secretaries of the Army (3). "(16) Assistant Secretaries of the Navy (3) ? "(17) ucation "(18) (4). "(19) "(20) "(21) "(22) "(23) ury (4). "(24) Chairman of the United States Tar- iff Commission. "(25) Commissioner, Community Facili- ties Administration. "(26) Commissioner, Federal Housing Ad- ministration, Assistant Secretaries of Health. Ed- and Welfare (2). Assistant Secretaries of the Interior Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Assistant Attorneys General (9). Secretaries of Labor (4). Postmasters General (5), Secretaries of State (11). Secretaries of the Treas- "(27) Commissioner, Public Housing Ad- ministration. "(28) Commissioner, Urban Renewal Ad- ministration. "(29) Director of Civil Defense, Depart- ment of the Army. "(30) Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. "(31) Deputy Chief Medical Director in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration. "(32) Deputy Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. "(33) Deputy Director of the Office of Sci- ence and Technology. "(34) Deputy Director of the Peace Corps. "(35) Deputy Director_ of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. "(36) Deputy Director of the United States Information Agency. "(37) Assistant Directors of the Bureau of the Budget (3). "(38) General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture. "(39) General Counsel of the Department of Commerce. "(40) General Counsel of the Department of Defense. "(41) General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. "(42) Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. "(43) Solicitor of the Department of Labor. "(44) General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. "(45) General Coupsel of the Post Office Department. "(46) Counselor of the Department of State. "(47) Legal Adviser of the Department of State. "(48) General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury. "(49) First Vice President of the Export- Import Bank of Washington. "(50) General Manager of the Atomic En- ergy Commission. "(51) Governor of the Farm Credit Ad- ministration. "(52) Inspector General, Foreign Assist- ance. "(53) Deputy Inspector General, Foreign Assistance. "(54) Members, Civil Aeronautics Board. "(55) Members, Council of Economic Ad- visers. "(56) Members, Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of Washington. "(57) Members, Federal Communications Commission. "(58) Member, Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. "(59) Members, Federal Home Loan Bank Board. "(60) Members, Federal Power Commis- sion. "(61) Members, Federal Trade Commis- sion. "(62) Members, Interstate Commerce Commission. "(63) Members, National Labor Relations Board. "(64) Members, Securities and Exchange Commission. "(65) Members, Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. "(66) Members, United States Civil Serv- ice Commission. "(67) Members, Federal Maritime Com- mission. "(68) Members, National Mediation Board. "(69) Members, Railroad Retirement Board. "(e) Level V of the Federal Executive Sal- ary Schedule shall apply to the following officers and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $26,000: Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 3 "(I) Administrator, Agricultural Market- ing Service, Department of Agriculture. "(2) Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture. "(3) Administrator, Agricultural Stabili- zation and Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. "(4) Administrator. Farmers Home Ad- ministration. "(5) Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Agriculture "(6) Administrator, Rural Electrification Administration, Department of Agriculture. "(7) Administrator, $oli Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. "(8) Administrator, Bonneville Power Ad- ministration, Department of the Interior. "(9) Administrator of the National Capi- tal Transportation Agency. "(10) Administrator of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. "(11) Deputy Administrators of the Small Business Administration (4). "(12) Associate Administrator for Admin- istration, Federal Aviation Agency. "(13) Associate Administrator for De- velopment, Federal Aviation Agency. "(14) Associate Administrator for Pro- grams, Federal Aviation Agency. "(151 Associate Administrator for Ad- vanced Research and Technology. National Aeronautics and Space Administration "(16) Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, National Aero- nautics and Space Administration. "(17) Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "(18) Associate Deputy Administrator, Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration. "(19) Deputy Associate Administrator. Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration. "(20) Associate Deputy Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. "(21) Archivist of the United States. (22) Area Redevelopment Administra- tor, Department of Commerce "(23) Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration. "(24) Assistant Secretary of Health, Edu- cation. and Welfare for Administration. "(25) Assistant Secetary of the Interior for Administration. "(26) Assistant Attorney General for Ad- ministration, "(27) Assistant Secretary of Labor for Ad- ministration. "(28) Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Administration. "(29) Assistant General Manager, Atomic Energy Commission. "(30) Assistant and Science Adviser to the Secretary of the Interior. "(31) Chairman, Foreign Claims Settle- ment Commission of the United States. "(32) Chairman of the Military Liaison Committee to the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, Department of Defense. "(33) Chairman of the Renegotiation Board. "(34) Chairman of the Subversive Activi- ties Control Board. "(35) Chief Counsel for the Internal Reve- nue Service, Department of the Treasury. "(36) Chief Forester of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. "(3'7) Chief Postal Inspector. Post Office Department. "(38) Chief, Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce. "(39) CommIssioner of Customs, Depart- of the Treasury. "(40) Commissioner, Federal Supply Serv- ice, General Services Administration. "(41) Commissioner of Education. Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. "(42) Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife. Department of the Interior. "(43) Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare. "(44) Commisaloner a Immigration and Naturalivation. Department of Justice. "(45) Counnissioner of Indian Affairs. De- partment of the Interior, "148) Chief Cotnrnissioner, Indian Claims Conunission. "1471 Associate Commissioners, Indian Claims Commiasion (2} . "(48) Commissioner of Patents, Depart- ment of Commerce. "(49) Commiasioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration. "(50) Commissioner of Reclamation, De- partment of the Interior. "(51) Commissioner of Social Security, Department of Health. Education, and Wel- fare. "(52) Commissioner of Vocational Reha- bilitation. Department of Health. Education, and Welfare. "(53) Commissioner of Welfare. Depart- ment of Health. Education, and Welfare. "(54) Director, Advanced Research Proj- ects Agency, Department of Defense. "(55) Director of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agriculture. "(56) Director, Bureau of the Census, De- partment of Commerce. "(57) Director, Bureau of Mines, Depart- ment of the Interior. "(58) Director, Bureau of Prisons, Depart- me lit of Justice. "150) Director, Geological Survey. Depart- ment of the Interior. "(60) Director. Office of Research and Engineering. Post Office Department. "(61) Director, National Bureau of Stand- ards, Department of Commerce. 821 Director of Regulation, Atomic Energy Commission. "(63) Director of Science and Education. Department of Agriculture. "(64) Deputy Under Secretary for Mone- tary Affairs, Department of the Treasury. -(65) Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Department of the Treasury. "(68) Deputy Director, National Science Foundation. "(61) Deputy Director. Policy and Plans, United States Information Agency. "188) Deputy General Counsel. Depart- ment of Defense. "(891 Deputy General Manager, Atomic Energy Commission. "(70) Associate Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. "(711 Associate Director for Volunteers. Peace Corps "(7) Associate Director for Program De- velopment and Operations, Peace Corps. "173) Asalatants to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice (2). "(74) Assietant Directors, Office of Emer- gency Planning (3). "(75) Assistant Directors. United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (4). "(76) Federal Highway Administrator, De- partment of Commerce. "(77) Fiacal Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. "(78) General Counsel of the Agency for International Development "(70) General Counsel of the Department of the Mr Force. "(80) General Counsel of the Department of the Army. "(81) General Counael of the Atomic Energy Commisaion. "(82) General Counsel of the Federal Aviation Agency. "(83) General Counsel of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. "(84) General Counsel of the Department of the Navy. "(85) General Counsel of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. "(88) General Counsel of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "(87) Governor of the Canal Zone. "(88) Manpower Administrator, Depart- ment of Labor. "(89) Maritime Administrator, Depaat- ment of Commerce. "(90) Members, Foreign Claims Settle- ment Commission of the United States. "(91) Members, Renegotiation Board. "(92) Members, Subversive Activities Cen- trol Board. (931 Members, United States Tariff Com- mission. "(94) President of the Federal National Mortgage Association. "(95) Special Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Medical Affairs), Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. "(90) Deputy Directors of Defense Re- search and Engineering, Department of Defense (4). "(97) Asaistant Administrator of General Services. "(98) Director, United States Travel Serv- ice. Departmc-nt of Commerce. "(99) Executive Director of the United States Civil Service Commission. "(1) In addition to the offices and posi- tions listed in subsections (d) and (e ) of this section, the President is authorized to place from time to time offices and positions held by not to exceed thirty persons in leaels IV and V of the Federal Executive Sa..ary Schedule when he deems such action neees- sary to reflect changes in organization, man- agement responsibilities, or workload in any Federal department or agency. Any such action with respect to an office to which ap- pointment is made by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall be effective only at the time of a new appointment to such office. Each action taken under this subsection shall be pub- lished in the Federal Register, except when It is determined by the President that such publication would be contrary to the interest of the national security. No action shall be taken under this subsection with respect to an office or position the compensation for which is fixed at a specific rate by this section or by statute enacted subsequert to the date of enactment of this Act. "(g) In addition to the offices and posi- tions listed in subsections (d) and (e) of this section and the offices and positions placed by tae President in levels IV and V pursuant to subsection (f) of this section, the President is authorized to place, during the period which begins on the day imme- diately following the date of enactment of this Act and which terminates on the first day of the sixth month which begins fcalow- ing the date of enactment of this Act, in levele IV and V of the Federal Execative Salary Schedule offices and positions he'd by not to exceed thirty persons, the duties: and responsibilities of which he deems appro- priate for :such levels. No action shall be taken under this subsection with respect to an office or potation the compensation for which is fixed at a specific rate by .this sec- tion or by statute enacted subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act. "Sem 364 (a) Section 104 of title 3, United States Code (relating to the compeneation of the Vice President), is amended by .atrik- ing out 135,000 and inserting in lieu thereof 143,000. "(b) Section 105 of title 3, United Incites Code, is amended to read as follows: " '? 105. Compensation of secretaries and executive, administrative, and staff assistants to President ''The President is authorized to fix the compensation of the six administratiee as- sistants authorized to be appointed under section 106 of this title, of the Exemtive Secretary of the National Security Courcil, of the Executive Secretary of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, and of eight other secretaries or immediate staff assist- ants in the White House Office at rates of Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18_.? CIA-RDPMB00403R000500050001-9 17275 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HO u St basic compensation not to exceed that of level n of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule.'. "Conforming changes in existing law "Sso. 305. The following provisions of law are hereby repealed; "(1) The Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2201-2209), es- tablishing rates of basic compensation for heads of executive departments and other Federal officials. "(2) Section 3012(h) of title 10, United States Code, providing compensation of $22,- 000 a year for the Secretary of the Army. "(3) Section 3013(b) of title 10, United States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the Under Secretary and each Assistant Secretary of the Army at $20,000 a year. "(4) Section 5031(d) of title 10, United States Code, providing compensation of $22,- 000 a year for the Secretary of the Navy. "(5) Section 5033(c) of title 10, United States Code, providing the annual salary of $20,000 a year for the Under Secretary of the Navy. "(6) Section 306 of Public Law 87-651, ap- proved September 7, 1962 (76 Stat. 526; 10 U.S.C. 5034, note), providing compensation of $20,000 a year for Assistant Secretaries of the Navy. "(7) Section 8012(g) of title 10, United States Code, providing compensation of $22,000 a year for the Secretary of the Air Force. "(8) Section 8013(b) of title 10, United States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the Under Secretary and each Assistant Secre- tary of the Air Force at $20,000 a year. "(9) Section 137(c) of title 10, United States Code, fixing the compensation of the General Counsel of the Department of De? tense at the rate prescribed by law for as- sistant secretaries of executive departments. "(10) (A) The last sentence of section 22 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 924; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2032(a)), relating to the annual salaries of the Chairman and members of such Com- mission, which reads: 'Each member, except the Chairman, shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,000 per annum; and the member designated as Chairman shall re- ceive compensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum.'. "(B) That part of the first sentence of section 27 a. of the Atomic Energy Mt of 1951 (68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2037(a) ), re- lating to the salary of the Chairman of the Military Liaison Committee which reads: and who shall receive compensation at the rate prescribed for an Assistant Secretary of Defense'. "(11) That part of Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799 and 861; 75 Stat. 630; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note)- "(A) In section 2(b), relating to the an- nual salary of the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, which reads: 'and shall receive compensation at the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for the heads of executive departments': "(B) In section 2(c), relating to the an- nual salary of the Deputy Director of such Office, which reads: 'shall receive compensa- tion at the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for the under secretaries referred to in section 104 of the Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956 (5 U.S.C. 2203),'; and "(C) In section 2(d), relating to the an- nual salaries of three Assistant Directors of such Office, which reads: 'shall receive com- pensation at .the rate now or hereafter pre- scribed by law for assistant secretaries of executive departments,'. "(12) (A) That part of the second sen- tence of section 202(a) of the National Aero- nautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2472(a) ), relating to the annual salary of the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which i reads: and shall receive compensa- tion at the rate of $22,500 per annum'. "(B) That part of the first sentence of sec- tion 202(b) ? of such Act (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2472 (b) ), relating to the annual sal- ary of the Deputy Administrator of such Administration, which reads: ', shall receive compensation at the rate of $21,500 per an- num,' "(13) (A) That part of section 201(f) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f) ), relat- ing to the annual salary of a civilian execu- tive secretary in the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which reads: 'and shall receive compensation at the rate of $20,000 a year'. "(B) That part of section 204 of such Act (72 Stat. 431, 432; 42 U.S.C. 2474(a) (1), and (d) ), relating to the annual salary of the Chairman of the Civilian-Military Liaison Committee, as follows: "In subsection (a) (1), that part which reads: ', and shall receive compensation( in the manner provided in subsection (d) ) at the rate of $20,000 per annum'. "In the second sentence of subsection (d), that part which reads: 'fixed by subsection (a) (1)% "(14) (A) That part of the second sentence of section 2(a) of the Act of May 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C. 151b(a)) as amended, relating to the rank and salary of the Coun- selor and of the Legal Adviser of the De- partment of State, which reads: 'and shall receive the same salary as'. "(B) The last sentence of section 2(a) of the Act of May 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C. 151b (a) ) as amended, relating to the rate of basic compensation of the Deputy Under Secretaries of State, which reads: 'Unless otherwise provided for by law, the rate of basic compensation of the Deputy Under Secretaries of State shall be the same as that of Assistant Secretaries of State.'. "(C) That part of the second sentence of section 2(b) of the Act of May 26, 1949, as amended (73 Stat. 265; 5 U.S.C. 151b(b) ), re- lating to the annual salary of the Under Sec- retary of State for Political Affairs or for Economic Affairs, as designated by the Presi- dent, which reads: 'shall receive compensa- tion at the rate of $22,000 a year and'. "(15) The last sentence of 210(a) of title 38, United States Code, relating to the an- nual salary of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, Veterans' Administration, which reads: 'Ile shall receive a salary of $21,000 a year, payable monthly.'. "(16) (A) The last sentence of section 201 (a) (2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 741; 49 U.S.C. 1321(a) (2) ), relating to the annual salaries of the Chairman and members of the Civil Aeronautics Board, which reads: 'Each member of the Board shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per annum, except that the member serving as Chairman shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,500 per annum.'. "(B) That part of the second sentence of section 301(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744; 49 U.S.C. 1341(a) ), relating to the annual sal- ary of the Administrator of the Federal Avia- tion Agency, which reads: and who shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,600 per anuum'. "(C) That part of the second sentence of section 302(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 714; 49 U.S.C. 1342(a) ), relating to the annual sal- ary of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency, which reads: 'shall receive compen- sation at the rate of $20,500 per annum, and'. "(17) (A) The last sentence of section 22 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2562), relating to the an- nual salary of the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which reads: 'He shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum.'. "(B) The second sentence of section 23 of such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2553), relat- ing to the annual salary of the Deputy Direc- tor of such Agency, which reads: 'He shall receive compensation at the rate of $21,500 per annum.'. "(C) The second sentence of section 21 of such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2564), relat- ing to the annual salaries of the four Assist- ant Directors of such Agency, which reads: 'They shall receive compensation at the rate of $20,000 per annum.'. "(18) Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1955 (69 Stat. 10; 5 U.S.C. 294, 293, 295a), relat- ing to the annual salaries of certain officials of the Department of Justice, which reads: " 'Sze. 3. (a) The compensation of the Deputy Attorney General shall be at the rate of $21,000 per annum. "'(b) The compensation of the Solicitor General shall be at the rate of $20,600 per annum. ''(c) The compensation of each Assistant Attorney General, other than the Adminis- trative Assistant Attorney General, shall be at the rate of $20,000 per annum'. "(19) (A) The last sentence of section 102(c) of Reorganization Plan Numbered 7 of 1961 (75 Stat. 840; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), relating to the annual salaries of the Chair- man and members of the Federal Maritime Commission, which reads: 'The Chairman of the Commission shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,600 per annum, and each of the other Commissioners shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per annum.'. "(B) That part of section 201 of such re- organization plan (75 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C. 133z- 15, note), relating to the annual salary of the Maritime Administrator in the Department of Commerce, which reads: 'shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per annum,'. "(20) That part of the fourth sentence of section 4(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (74 Stat. 408 and 913; 15 U.S.C. 78d(a) ),relating to the annual salaries of the Chairman and Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which reads: 'shall 'receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 a year, except that the Chairman shall receive additional salary at the rate of $500 a year and'. "(21) Section 8 of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 (72 Stat. 1789; 5 U.S.C. 2205, note), fixing the annual salary of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs at $20,000 per annum. "(22) That part of the first sentence of section 3 of the Area Redevelopment Act (75 Stat. 48; 42 U.S.C. 2502), relating to the annual salary of the Area Redevelopment Administrator in the Department of Com- merce, which reads: 'who shall receive com- pensation at a rate equal to that received by Assistant Secretaries of Commerce'. "(23) The last sentence of section 203(b) (1) of the National Security Act of 1947 ('72 Stat. 620; 5 71.S.C. 171c(b) (1) ), relating to the annual salary of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering in the Department of Defense, which reads: 'The compensation of the Director is that prescribed by law for the Secretaries of the military departments.'. "(24) In section 303(a) of title 23, United States Code, "(A) That part of the second sentence, relating to the annual salary of the Federal Highway Administrator in the Department of Commerce, which reads: 'shall receive basic compensation at the rate prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of executive departments and'; and "(B) The last sentence, relating to the an- nual salary of the Deputy Federal Highway Admint-trator in such department, which reads: 'The Deputy Federal Highway Admin- istrator shall receive basic compensation at a rate $1,000 less than the rate provided for the Federal Highway Administrator.'. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17276 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE "(25) The last proviso in the paragraph under the heading 'IraasnatATioar AND NAT- URALIZATION SERVICE' and under the subhead- ing 'SALARIES AND EXPENSES' in the Depart- rnent of Justice Appropriation Act, 1959 (72 Stat. 251; 5 U.S.C. 2206. note), relating to the annual salary of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice, which reads: ': Provided further, That, hereafter, the compensation of the Commis- sioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be $20.000 per annum'. -(26) The second paragraph of section 3 of title 35, United States Code, relating to the annual salary of the Commissioner of Patents which reads: 'The annual rate of compensation of the Commissioner shall be $20,000.'. "(27) That part of section 4(a) of the Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612. 22 U.S.C. 2503(a)), relating to the annual salaries of the Director and of the Deputy Director of the Peace Corps, which reads: ', whose com- pensation shall be fixed by the President at a rate not in excess of $20,000 per annum,' and '. whose compensation shall be fixed by the President at a rate not In excess of *19,500 per annum'. "(28) (A) Section 308 of title 39. United States Code, fixing the annual rate of basic compensation of the position of Chief Postal Inspector in the Post Office Department at $19.000. "(B) That part of the table of contents of chapter 3 of title 39, United States Code, which reads as follows: "'308. Chief Postal Inspector:. "(29) That part of the first sentence of section 4 of the International Travel Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 130; 22 U.S.C. 2124), relating to the annual salary of the Director of the United States Travel Service in the Depart- ment of Commerce. which reads: 'who shall be compensated at the rate of $19,000 per annum:. "(30) Section 14(b) of the Federal Em- ployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 716; 5 U.S.C. 3013(b)). which fixes the com- pensation of the Executive Director of the United States Civil Service Commission at $19.000 per annum. "(31) That part of the first sentence of section 107(c) of the Renegotiation Act of 1951. as amended (73 Stat. 211; 50 U.S.C. App. 1217(c)), relating to the annual salary of the General Counsel of the Renegotiation Board, which reads: ', and shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $19.000 per annum'. "(32) (A) That part of the third sentence In section 201(a) of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 538; 40 U.S.C. 6131(a)), relating to the annual salary of the Administrator of the National Capital Transportation Agency, which rends: and who shall receive compensation at a rate equal to the maximum rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. plus $500 per annum'. "(B) That part of the first sentence of section 201(b) of such Act (74 Stat. 538; 40 U.S.C. 661(b) ). relating to the annual salary of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency, which reads: ', and who shall receive com- pensation at a rate equal to the maximum rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended'. "(33) The last sentence of section 624(d) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 ( '75 Stat. 447: 22 U.S.C. 2384(d) (Ii), as amended, fixing the compensation of certain officials in the Department of State, which reads: 'The Inspector General. Foreign Assistance, shall receive compensation at the rate of $20,000 annually; the Deputy Inspector General, Foreign Assistance, shall receive compensa- tion at the rate of $20,000 annually, and-each Assistant Inspector General, Foreign Assist- ance, shall receive compensation at the rate of $19.000 annually:. "(34) That part of section 202 of the Act of July 1, 1960 (74 Stat. 305; 5 U.S.C. 623g), relating to the annual salary of the Admin- istrative Assistant Secretary of Health. Edu- cation, and Welfare, which reads: ',and whose annual rate of basic compensation shall be $19,000'. "(35) That part of the Public Works Ap- propriation Act, 1963, under the heading 'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR' and un- der the caption `BUREAU or RECLAMATION' and the subheading 'atuarauaramrivis a/roar- stoats' (76 Stat. 1223; 43 U.S.C. 3735-1), re- lating to the annual salary of the present incumbent of the position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, which reads: "'Alter September 30. 1962, the position of Commissioner of Reclamation shall have the annual rate of compensation as provided for positions listed in section 2205(a) of title 5, United States Code, so long as held by the present incumbent!. "(36) That part of the Public Works Ap- propriation Act, 1962. under the heading 'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR' and under the Caption 'BONNEVILLE POWER AD- MINISTRATION' and the subheading 'CON- STRUCTION' (75 Stat. 728; 16 U.S.C. 832a-1), relating to the annual salary of the present Incumbent of the position of Administrator, Banneville Power Administration, which reads: " 'After Oc1.4.aser 1. 1961. the position of Administrator. Bonneville Power Adminis- tration. shall have the same annual rate of compensation as that provided for positions listed in section 2205( b) of title 5, United States Code, so long as held by the present incumbent:. "(37) Section 205 of the Public Works Ap- propriation Act. 1958 (71 Stat. 423; 5 U.S.C. 483-1 note. 2208 note), as amended, relating to the salary of the present incumbent of the position of Administrator of the South- western Power Administration In the Depart- ment of the Interior, and to the salary of the Administrative Assistant Secretary of such Department, which reads: " 'Sec. 205. After August 31, 1957. the salary of the Administrator of the South- western Power Administration shall be the same as the salary of the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration, so long as held by the present incumbent; and the salary of the Administrative Assistant Sec- retary of the Department shall be the same as the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.'. "(38) The proviso in the first paragraph under the heading 'FEDERAL Btrarati or IN- vEsTtcerioN' and under the subheading 'SALARIES AND EXI.ENSES' in the Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1964 (77 Stat. 782; Public Law 88-245), relating to the annual salary of the present incumbent of the position of Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which reads: ?. provided. That the compensation of the Director of the Bureau shall be $22,000 per annum so long as the position is held by the present incumbent' and provisions to the same effect contained in other appro- priation Acts enacted prior to the effective date of this section relating to the annual salary of the present incumbent of the posi- tion of Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "(39) That part of section 7801(b) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, relating to the annual salary of the Assistant General Counsel of the Treasury Department who shall be the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service, which reads: 'and shall receive basic compensation at tile annual rate of $19,000'. "(40) (A) Sections 3018. 6014, and 8018 of title 10, United States Code, relating to the compensation of the general counsels of the military departments. August 3 (Hi The respective tables of contents of chapters 303, 503, and 803 of title 1C, United States Code, are amended by striking out " '3018. Compensation of Genera. Coun- sel.'; " '5014. Compensation of Genera: Coun- sel.'; and " '8018. Compensation of General Coun- sel.'. "(41)(A) That part of section 2(a of Re- organization Plan Numbered 2 of 1962 176 Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), relating to the compensation of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, which reads: 'and shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum'. "(B) That part of section 2(b) of such re- organization plan (76 Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), relating to the compensation of the Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology, which reads: 'anti receive compensation at the rate of 620,500 aer an- num'. '(C) That part of section 22(a) of such re- organization plan (76 Stat. 1255; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15. note), relating to the compensation of the Director of the National ;Science Foundation, which reads: 'shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $21,000 per Inn= and'. "(42) That part of section 624(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 447; 22 U.S.C. 2384(5)), relating to the ccmpen- Batton of twelve officers in the agency pri- marily responsible for administering part I of such Act, which reads: 'of whom-- '(1) one shall have the rank of an Under Secretary and shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate authorized ay law for any Under Secretary of an executive de- partment; '"(2) oae shall have the rank of Deputy Under Secretary and shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate authoriaed by law for any Deputy Under Secretary of an executive department; and "*(3) ten shall have the rank of Assistant Secretaries and shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate authorized by law for any Assistant Secretary of an execu- tive department:. "(43) That part of the first sentence of section 104(b) of the Immigration and Na- tionality Act 166 Stat. 174; 8 U.S.C. 1104.(b)), relating to the rank and compensation of the Administrator. Bureau of Securita and Consular Affairs, which reads: 'and compen- sation'. "(44) That part of section 3 of Reorgani- zation Plan Numbered 1 of 1953 (67 Stat. 631; 5 U.S.C. 623, note), relating to the Special Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Med- ical Affairs), Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, which reads: ', and shall receive compensation at the rate now or hereafter provided by law for assistant secre- taries of executive departments'. "Sze. 306. (a) (1) Section 508 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: " '? 508. Salaries " 'Subject to subsection if) of section 3C3 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964, the Attorney General shall fix the annua sal- aries of United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, and attorneys ap- pointed under section 503 of this title at rates of compensation not in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.'. "(2) Subject to section 303(f) of this Act, each incumbent United States attorney and assistant United States attorney shall be paid compensation at a rate equal to that of attorneys of comparable responsibility and professional qualifications, as determined by the Attorney General, whose compensation Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196,4 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE is prescribed in the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. "(b) Section 411 of the Foreign Service Eict of 1946, as amended (70 Stat. 704; 22 J.S.C. 866), relating to the per annum ;alaries of chiefs of mission, is amended by striking out the second sentence of that sec- don and inserting in lieu thereof the follow- ng: 'The per annum salaries of chiefs of nission within each class shall be at the 'ate provided by law for the levels of the Tederal Executive Salary Schedule as follows: :lass 1, the rate for level II; class 2, the rate or level III; class 3, the rate for level IV; end class 4, the rate for level V.'. '(c) That part of section 201(f) of the gational Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f) ), fixing a Limit of $19,000 on the compensation of seven persons in the National Aeronautics and Space Council, is amended by striking out compensated at the rate of not more than 1119,000 a year,' and inserting in lieu thereof compensated at not to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the General. Schedule of :he Classification Act of 1949, as amended,'. "(d) Clause (A) of section 203(b) (2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2473(b) (2) ), as emended, is amended to read as follows: (A) to the extent the Adminstrator deems such action necessary to the discharge of his responsibilities, he may appoint not more than four hundred and twenty-five of the scientific, engineering, and administrative personnel of the Administration without re- gard to such laws, and may fix the compensa- tion of such personnel not in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and'. "(e) Section 6(f) of the Act of September 24, 1959 (73 Stat. 706; 5 U.S.C. 2376(f) ), relating to the maximum compensation pay- able to employees of the Advisory Commis- sion on Intergovernmental Relations, is amended by striking out 'at a rate in excess of $20,000 per annum' and by inserting in lieu thereof 'at a rate in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended'. '(f) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is further amended as follows: "(1) In the last sentence of section 24 a. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat, 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034 (a) ), relating to the annual salary of the General Manager of such Commission, (A) by inserting 'and' immediately before 'shall be removable by the Commission' and (B) by striking out that part which reads: ',and shall receive compensation at a rate de- termined by the Commission, but not in excess of 822,000 per annum'; "(2) In the last sentence of section 24 b. (71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034 (b) ), relating to the annual salary of the Deputy General Manager of such Commission, (A) by insert- ing 'and' immediately before 'shall be re- movable by the General Manager' and (B) by striking out that part which reads: ', and shall receive compensation at a rate de- termined by the General Manager, but 'not in excess of $20,500 per annum'; "(3) In the last sentence of section 24 c. (71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(c) ), relating to the annual salaries of the Assistant General Managers (or their equivalents) of such Commission, (A) by inserting 'and' im- mediately before 'shall be removable by the General Manager' and (B) by striking out that part which reads: ', and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the General Manager, but not in excess of 820,- 000 per annum'; "(4) In the second sentence of section 25 a. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035 (a) ), relating to the annual salaries of di- rectors of program divisions of such Corn- mission, by striking out that part which reads: 'and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the Commission, but not in excess of $19,000 per annum'; "(5) In section 25 b. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035 (b) ), relating to the an- nual salary of the General Counsel of such Commission, by striking out that part which reads: 'and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the Commission, but not in excess of 819,500 per annum'; "(6) In the first sentence of section 25 c. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat, 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(c) ), relating to the annual salary of the Director of the Inspection Division in such Commission, by striking out that part which reads: 'and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the Commission, but not In excess of $19,000 per annum'; "(7) In the last sentence of section 25 d. (71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2085(d)), relating to the annual salaries of certain executive management positions in such Commission, (A) by inserting 'and' immediately before 'shall be removable by the General Manager' and (B) by striking out that part which reads: ', and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the General Manager, but not in excess of 819,000 per annum'; and "(8) In the second sentence of section 28 (68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2038), relating to the compensation of the active member of the Armed Forces serving as Director of the Di- vision of Military Application in such Com- mission, by striking out that part which reads 'and the compensation prescribed in section 25' and inserting in lieu thereof, 'and the compensation established for this posi- tion pursuant to section 303 or section 309 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964'. "(g) Section 2 of the Act of July 30, 1946, as amended (60 Stat. '712; 70 Stat. 740; 22 U.S.C. 287n), relating to the compensation of the United States representatives and al- ternates at sessions of the General Confer- ence of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, is amended by striking out 'Such representa- tives and alternates shall each be entitled to receive compensation at such rates, not to exceed 815,000 per annum, as the Presi- dent may determine,' and inserting in lieu thereof 'Such representatives and alternates shall each be entitled to receive compensa- tion at such rates provided for Foreign Serv- ice officers in the schedule contained in sec- tion 412 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, as the President may determine,'. "(h) The third sentence of section 2 of the Act of May 29, 1959 (73 Stat. 63; 50 U.S.C. 402, nate), is amended to read as follows: 'Except as provided in subsection (f) of sec- tion 303 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964, no officer or employee of the Na- tional Security Agency shall be paid basic compensation at a rate in excess of the high- est rate of basic compensation contained in such General Schedule.'. "(1) (1) Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of 17277 July 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code, secs. 1-204a and 1-204b), relating to the compen- sation of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, are amended to read as fol- lows: "'Sze. 2. Except as otherwise provided by this section and section 3 of this Act- "'(-1) the compensation of the Commis- sioners of the District of Columbia shall be at the rate of $26,500 each per annum; and "'(2) the Commissioner detailed from the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army shall receive an annual compensation which, when added to any compensation he receives as an officer of the United States Army, will equal the compensation authorized by para- graph (1) of this section. "'Sze. 3. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of law- " '(1) the compensation of the President of the Board of Commissioners of the Dis- trict of Columbia shall be at the rate of 826,000 per annum; and "'(2) if the Commissioner detailed from the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army is chosen President of the Board of Commissioners, he shall receive, as President of the Board, an annual compensation which, when added to any compensation he receives as an officer of the United States Army, will equal the compensation authorized by para- graph (1) of this section.'. "(2) Section 11-702(d) of the District of Columbia Code (77 Stat. 484; Public Law 88- 211), relating to the rates of annual salary of the chief Judge and the associate Judges of the District of Columbia Court a Appeals, is amended- "(A) by striking out 119,000' and insert- ing in lieu thereof '$25,000'; and "(B) by striking out 118,500' and insert- ing in lieu thereof '$24,500'. "(3) Section 11-902(d) of the District of Columbia ;Code (77 Stat. 487; Public Law 88- 241) , relating to the rates of annual salary of the chief judge and the associate Judges of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, is amended- "(A) by striking out '818,000' and insert- ing in lieu thereof '$24,000'; and "(B) by striking out 117,500' and insert- ing in lieu thereof 123,500'. "(4) The first sentence of the second para- graph of section 2 of the District of Colum- bia Revenue Act of 1937, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-2402), relating to the compen- sation of the person appointed to the Dis- trict of Columbia Tax Court, is amended by striking out '$17,500' and inserting in lieu thereof '823,500'. "(5) That part of the salary schedule in section 1 of the District of Columbia Teach- ers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended (76 Stat. 1229; D.C. Code, sec. 31-1501), relating to the compensation of the Superintendent of Schools, and Deputy Superintendent of Schools, of the District of Columbia, which reads: " 'Class 1: Superintendent of Schools ..1$19, 000 Class 2: Deputy Superintendent_ 16, 600 I is amended to read as follows: '"Class 1: Superintendent of Schools _j$26, 000 I Class 2: Deputy Superintendent__ j 22, 000 I "(6) That part of the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 480), as amended (sec. 4-823, et seq., D.C. Code, 1961 edition), relating to the compen- sation of the Fire Chief and the Chief of Police, which reads: " Class 10 Fire Chief. Chief of Police.' is amended to read as follows: " Class 10 Fire Chief. Chief of Police.' 17, 000 I21,000 17, 21, 900 500 17, 800 22, 000 18, 200 22, 000 I 18, 600 19, I23, 000 I 23, 000 I 600 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE "(j) (1) The catchline of section 3012 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out'; compensation' "(2) The table of contents of chapter 303 of such title 10 is =ended by striking out " '3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and duties; delegation by; compensa- tion.' and inserting in lieu thereof " '3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and duties; delegation by.'. "(3) The catchline of section 5031 of such title 10 is amended by striking out '; com- pensation'. "(4) The table of contents of chapter 505 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "'5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili- ties; compensation.' and inserting in lieu thereof "'5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili- ties... "(5) The catchline of section 5033 of such title 10 is amended by striking out '; com- pensation'. "(6) The table of contents of chapter 505 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "'5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: ap- pointment; duties; compensation.' and inserting in lieu thereof "'5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: ap- pointment; duties.'. "(7) The catchline of section 8012 of such title 10 is amended by striking out '; com- pensation'. "(8) The table of contents of chapter 803 of such title 10 is amended by striking out " '8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers and duties; delegation by; com- pensation.' and inserting in lieu thereof "'8012. Secretary of the Aix Force: powers and duties; delegation by.'. "Changes in position titles "SEC. 307. Whenever reference is made in any law or reorganization plan to the-- "Administrative Assistant Attorney Gen- eral, "Administrative Assistant Secretary of the Interior, "Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, "Administrative Assistant Secretary of Labor, "Administrative Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, or "Administrative Aseistant Secretary of Health, Education. and Welfare, "such reference shall be held and considered to mean the "Assistant Attorney General for Adminis- tration, "Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Administration, "Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration, "Assistant Secretary of Labor for Adminis- tration, "Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Administration, or "Assistant Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare for Administration, respectively. "Limitation on salaries fixed by administra- tive action "SEc. 308. Except as provided by this Act and notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the head of any executive depart- ment, independent establishment, or agency in the executive branch who is authorized to fix by administrative action the annual rate of basic compensation for any position, officer, or employee shall not fix such rate in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to impair the authorities provided in the Central Intelli- gence Agency Act of 1949, as amended (50 U.S.C. 403a and following), in section 3 of the Tenenssee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831b), in section 9 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1819), in section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 2481. or in section 5240 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481. relating to the Comp- troller of the Currency). "Afisceilatterrus positions in the executive bra rich "Sec. 309. Each office or position in the executive branch specifically referred to in, or covered by, any conforming change in law made by section 305 of this Act, or any other office or position in the executive branch for which the annual salary is es- tablished pursuant to special provision of law enacted prior to the date of enactment of this Act, at a figure of $18.500 or above, which is not placed In a level of the Federal Execu- tive Salary Schedule pursuant to section 303 of this Act, shall be paid basic compensation at a rate which is equal to the salary rate of a grade and step of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. All actions taken under this section shall be reported to the United States Civil Service Commission and published in the Federal Register, except when it is determined by the President that such report and publica- tion would be contrary to the interest of national security. "Saving provisions "Sec. 310. (a) Except as provided by this Act, the changes in existing law made by tids Act shall not affect any office or posi- tion existing immediately prior to the effec- tive date of any such changes in existing law, the compensation attached to such office or position, and any incumbent thereof, his appointment thereto, and his entitlement to receive the compensation attached there- to, until appropriate action is taken in ac- cordance with this Act or other law. "(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, the rate of basic gross, or total an- nual compensation received by any officer or employee immediately prior to the effective elate of this section shall not be reduced by reason of enactment of this Act. %Tres tv ? FEDER AL JUDICIAL SALARIES "Sec. 401. This title may he cited as the 'Federal Judicial Salary Act of 1984'. "Sac. 402. (a) The rates of basic compen- sation of officers and employees in or under the judicial branch of the Government whose rates of compensation are fixed by or pur- suant to paragraph (2) of subdivision a of section 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 102(a) (2)), section 3650 of title 18, United States Code, the third sentence of section 603, sections 872 to 675. inclusive, or section 604(a) (5), of title 28, United States Code, Insofar as the latter-section applies to graded positions, are hereby increased by amounts reflecting the respective applicable increases provided by title I of this Act in correspond- ing rates of compensation for officers and employees subject to the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. The rates of basic compensation of officers and employees hold- ing ungraded positions and whose salaries are fixed pursuant to section 604(a) (5) may be increased by the amounts reflecting the respective applicable increases provided by title I of this Act in corresponding rates of compensation for officers and employees sub- ject to the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. "(b) The limitations provided by applica- ble law on the effective date of this section with respect to the aggregate salaries payable to secretaries and law clerks of circuit and district judges are hereby increased by amounts which reflect the respective appli- cable increases provided by title I of this A;Igust ; Act in corresponding rates of compensasio for officers and employees subject to ti Classification Act of 1949, as amended. "(c) Section 753(e) of title 28, Unit( States Code (relating to the compensa tic of court reporters for district courts). amended by striking out the existing sala limitation contained therein and inserting new limitation which reflects the respecti- applicable increases provided by title I of tla Act in corresponding rates of conmensatic for officers and employees subject to ti Classification Act of 1949, as amended. "(d) Section 40a of the Bankruptcy A (11 U.S.C. C8(a) ), as amended, relating the compensation of full-time and part-;in referees in bankruptcy, is amended by a;ril Mg out the existing compensation limitat ice contained therein and inserting new limit) tions of '$22,500' and 111.000', respective' "Sac. 403. (a) Section 5 of title 28, Unite States Code, relating to the salaries of ti Chief Justice of the United States and ) the Associate Justices of the Supreme Con of the United States, is amended by strikit out 1.35,500' and substituting therefor '$40 000', and by striking out '$35.000' and sill stituting therefor '$39,500'. 'Op) Section 44(d) of title 28, Unite States Code, relating to circuit judges, amended by striking out '825,500' and sui stituting therefor '$33,000'. "(c) Section 135 of title 28, United Stan Code, relating to district judges, is amends by striking out 122,500' and substitutir therefor 130,000', and by striking out $23 000' and substituting therefor 130,500'. "(d) Section 173 of title 28, United Etat) Code, relating to judges of the Court ( Claims, is amended by striking out 125,50 and substituting therefor '$33,000'. '(e) Section 213 of title 28, United State Code, relating to judges of the Court of Cu toms and Patent Appeals, is amended b striking out 125,500' and substituting there for 133,000'. '(f) Section 252 of title 28, United State Code, relating to judges of the Custom Court, is amended by striking out 122,50t, and substituting therefor 130,000'. "(g) The first paragraph of section 603 of title 28, United States Code, relating to the compensation of the Director and the Daputy Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, is amended to read as follows: " 'The Director shall receive a salsry of $27,000 a year. The Deputy Director shall receive a salary of $26,000 a year.' " ( h) Subsection (b) of section 792 of title 28, United States Code, relating to the com- pensation of commissioners of the Court of Claims, is amended to read as follows: "(b) Each commissioner shall receive basic compensation at the rate of $2f,000 a year, and also all necessary traveling expenses and a per diem allowance as provided in the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amanded. while traveling on official business ans. away from Washington, District of Columbia.' "(1) Section 7443(c) of the Internal Rev- enue Code of 1954 (68A Stat. 879), as amended, relating to judges of the Tax Court of the United States, is further amended by striking out '$22,500' and substituting there- for '$30.000'. "(j) Section 867(a (1) of title 10, ?Jnited Staten Code, relating to judges of the Court of Military Appeals, is amended by s ;taking out '$25,500' and substituting therefor '$33,000'. "TITLE V- ?EFFECTIVE DATES "Sac 501. (a) Except to the extent provided in subsections (bi and (c) of this section, this Act and the increases in compensation made by this Act shall become effective on the first clay of the first pay period which be- gins on Cr after July 1, 1964. "(b) Section 204 of this Act, relating to increases in compensation for Members of Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17279 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Congress, shall become effective at noon on January 3, 1965. "(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act (but except as otherwise provided In subsection (b) of this section)? "(1) no rate of compensation which is squal to or in excess of $22,000 per annum shall be increased in any amount, by reason of section 202 of this Act, until the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after January 1, 1965; and "(2) no rate of compensation which is less than $22,000 per annum shall be increased to an amount per annum in excess of $22,000, by reason of section 202 or 203(g) of this Act, until the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after January 1, 1965. "(d) For the purpose of determining the amount of insurance for which an individual is eligible under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, all changes in rates of compensation or salary which re- sult from the enactment of this Act shall be held and considered to be effective as of the date of such enactment. "SEC. 502. (a) Retroactive compensation or salary shall be paid by reason of this Act only in the case of an individual in the serv- ice of the United States (including service in the Armed Forces of the United States) or the municipal government of the District of Co- lumbia on the date of enactment of this Act, except that such retroactive compensation or salary shall be paid (1) to an officer or em- ployee who retired during the period begin- ning on the effective date prescribed by sec- tion 501(a) and ending on the date of enact- ment of this Act for services rendered during such period and (2) in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 3, 1950 (Pub- lic Law 636, Eighty-first Congress), as amended (5 U.S.C. 61f-61k), for services rendered during the period beginning on the effective date prescribed by section 501(a) and ending on the date of enactment of this Act by an officer or employee who dies during such period. Such retroactive compensation' or salary shall not be considered as basic salary for the purpose of the Civil Service Re- tirement Act in the case of any such retired or deceased officer or employee. "(b) For the purposes of this section, serv- ice in the Armed Forces of the United States, in the case of an individual relieved from training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States or discharged from hos- pitalization following such training and serv- ice, shall include the period provided by law for the mandatory restoration of such indi- vidual to a position in or under the Federal Government or the municipal government of the District of Columbia," and the Senate agree to the same. Tom MURRAY, JAMES H. MORRISON, ROBERT J. CORBETT, Managers on the Part of the House. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, MIKE MONRONEY, FRANK CARLSON, Managers on the Part of the Senate. STATEMENT The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11049) entitled "An act to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Fed- eral Government, and for other purposes," submit the following statement in explana- tion of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report. The Senate struck out all of the House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a sub- stitute text. The committee of conference recommends that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Sen- ate with an amendment which is a substitute for both the House bill and the Senate amendment and that the Senate agree to the same. Except for technical and conforming changes, the differences between the House bill and the conference substitute are ex- plained below. COST OF SALARY INCREASES The budget expenditure for the fiscal year 1965 under the conference substitute is not expected to exceed $544 million, the Presi- dent's maximum budget figure for the 1965 fiscal year. The annual cost of the confer- ence substitute would be approximately $558 million on the basis of the current employ- ment figures. However, the Bureau of the Budget has advised that the fiscal year 1965 expenditure because of this legislation will be held to the budget figure of $544 million through attrition, unfilling of vacancies, and other actions to increase the amount of cost absorptibn required under section 125 of the conference substitute. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TEXT OF THE HOUSE BILL AND THE CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE Title I?Federal employees' salary systems Title I of both the House bill and the con- ference substitute provides salary rates rea- sonably comparable to those for substantially equal responsibilities in private enterprise for employees subject to (1) the Classifica- tion Act of 1949; (2) the 'postal field service compensation provisions of title 39, United States Code; (3) the salary schedules of the Foreign Service Act of 1946; (4) section 4107 of title 38, United States Code, relating to positions in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration; and (5) employees of the agricultural stabiliza- tion and conservation county committees. The coverage of title I of the House bill is identical to the coverage of title I of the conference substitute. The major differ- ences are discussed below. Middle salary grades The House bill guarantees a minimum 3- percent salary increase for postal employees and for employees in the lower grades of the Classification Act of 1949, but less than 3 percent for employees in the middle grades of such act?GS-9, GS-10, GS-11, and GB-12. Section 102(a) of the conference substitute guarantees a minimum 3-percent increase for the middle grades as well as for the lower grades by increasing the rates provided in the House bill by $10 for GS-9, $60 for GS- 10, $100 for GS-11, and $50 for GS-12. All other rates of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949 are identical in both the House bill and the conference substitute. Similar increases are provided under sec- tion 118 of the conference substitute for the middle grades of the salary schedules for employees in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration and under section 119 for the salary sched- ules of the Foreign Service Act of 1946. Initial appointments Section 103(a) of the House bill and 103(a) of the conference substitute both amended section 801 of the Classification Act of 1949 relating to new appointments, The conference substitute adds the require- ment to the House bill provisions that new appointments to positions in GS-13 and above at a rate above the minimum rate may be made only with the approval of the Civil Service Commission in each specific case. Such requirement will not apply to appoint- ments made by the Librarian of Congress. Professional engineering positions Subsection (b) of section 103 of the House bill excludes professional engineering posi- tions primarily concerned with research and development and professional positions in the physical and natural sciences and medi- cine which are placed in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the General Schedule of the Classifica- tion Act of 1949 from the provisions of sec- tion 507 and titles VII and VIII of such act. Section 507 relates to salary retention on reduction in grade. Title VII relates to step increases and title VIII relates to such mat- ters as the rate within the grade payable on initial appointment or promotion. The conference substitute does not include a comparable provision. Hearing examiners Section 103(c) of the House bill and sec- tion 103(b) of the conference substitute relate to additional positions exempted from the maximum limitation of 2,400 supergrade positions ?which the Civil Service Commis- sion may approve for 05-16, GS-17, and GS-18. The House bill added two new exemptions: (1) hearing examiner positions under sec- tion 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1010); and (2) positions placed in the supergrades in accordance with section 309 of the House bill. In general, section 309 covers certain positions which were not placed in the Federal Executive Salary Schedule by this legislation. The conference substitute adds to the ex- emptions from the 2,400 supergrade post-, tions, 240 positions of hearing examiners for GS-16 and 9 positions of hearing examiners for 05-17. The House bill did not contain any numerical limitation on the number of hearing examiner positions to be placed in the supergrades. It is to be noted that the limitations on hearing examiner positions to be exempt from the total limitation of 2,400 does not prohibit the placing of more than 240 hearing examiner positions in grade 16 or more than 9 hearing examiner posi- tions in grade 17 should the Civil Service Commission approve additional hearing ex- aminer positions for the supergrades within the 2,400 numerical limitation. The second exemption contained in the House bill relating to section 309 is not in- cluded in the conference substitute, as sec- tion 309 of the conference substitute provides that employees occupying positions covered by section 309 will receive pay equivalent to a rate of the General Schedule of the Classi- fication Act of 1949 but does not contem- plate that the positions will be placed un- der the Classification Act of 1949 or placed In the supergrades as did the House version. Pay computation Section 103(d) of the House bill amends section 604(d) (3) of the Federal Employ- ees Pay Act of 1945 (5 U.S.C. 944(c) (3) ) to change the method of computing salary rates for all pay computation purposes affecting most employees of the Federal Government and of the municipal government of the Dis- trict of Columbia so that in the computa- tion of rates all remaining fractions of a cent shall be eliminated. The existing method of computing rates is to compute in full cents, counting any fraction of a cent as the next higher cent. Section 103(c) of the conference substitute requires rounding off to the nearest cent, counting one-half cent and over as the next higher cent. This method of computation is the same method now provided under sec- tion 3541(f) of title 39, United States Code, for postal employees. Consequently, sec- tion 116(b) of the House bill amending sec- tion 3541(f) is not included in the confer- ence substitute. Ranking of positions in the postal service Section 108(a) of the House bill and sec- tion 108(a) of the conference substitute both amend section 3501 of title 39, United States Code, by adding a new subsection (c) relat- ing to the ranking of positions for which the number of annual revenue units of a post office or its class is a relevant factor of the ranking of positions. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17280 Approved For Reltaae_2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 LTRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE inigUd 3 Under the conference substitute the re- ranking of such positions will be as of the beginning of the first pay period in calendar year 1965, whereas the House bill would have required the first reranking of such poet- tions as of the beginning of the first pay period occurring on or after the date of en- actment of this bill. Fourth-class postmasters Section 111 of the House bill and section 111 of the conference substitute bath amend section 3544 of title 39, United States Code, relating to the compensation of postmasters at fourth-class post offices. The House bill proposes a measure which would accomplish pay reform for postmasters at fourth-class offices in line with reforms provided other_ Federal employees in the Fed- eral Salary Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 841: Public Law 87-793, part LI). The reform would evaluate the positions of postmasters in fourth-class offices in PF5-5 and determine their pay for essentially part-time work on the basis of actual time required. The pro- posal would authorize the Postmaster Gen- eral to establish and determine the work re- quirements in these part-time offices and to fix the compensation of postmasters ac- cordingly. Where the actual compensation to be fixed by this method was less than that -due under FOS schedule IL compensation would have continued to be fixed under FOS schedule II as though such schedule con- tinued in effect. The House bill also made other changes respecting postmasters in fourth-class offices which recognized the part-time nature of their work. The I5-percent allowance for rent, light, fuel, and equipment was based on the rate for step 1 rather than on the actual compensation of the postmaster as at present where quarters are not furnished. The change would have given the Post Office Department the option to furnish quarters when this was desirable, necessary, or more economical and, at the same time, rationalize the allowance for postmasters furnishing quarters. Section 111(a) of the conference substi- tute does not contain the reform measures included in the House bill but provides a new salary schedule for postmasters at fourth-class poet offices. The schedule is based on the new revenue unit concept and provides increases ranging from 10 percent in the highest group for fourth-class offices to 15 percent in the lower fourth-class office levels. Postmasters at fourth-clam offices of the lowest two existing levels will receive increases substantially In excess of 15 percent of their present salary. This group Is among the lowest paid of Federal employees and has the greatest need for substantial salary in- cremes. The conference substitute also provides the necessary language to properly com- pensate postmasters at fourth-class offices under the revenue unit concept, to permit the Postmaster General to advance fourth- class offices to higher categories, to com- pensate persons serving in place of post- masters at fourth-class offices, to provide additional compensation to postmasters at fourth-class offices for unusual conditions, to provide for compensation to postmasters at seasonal fourth-class offices, to provide for the relegation of third-class offices to the fourth-class under certain conditions, and to provide for an allowance of 15 percent basic compensation for quarters, fixtures. and equipment. Section 111(b) of the conference sub- stitute provides a method of converting post- masters at fourth-class offices to the new schedule. Each postmaster will be placed In the lowest step for his revenue unit cate- gory which exceeds his existing compensa- tion by not less than 19 percent. If there is no such step, he will retain his existing compensation plus 10 percent. Because the increases incident to changing to the new schedule are not equivalent, increases, any credit toward the next step increase earned prior to the effective date of section 111 will be carried forward for purposes of determin- ing eligibility for the next step increase un- der the new schedule. Section 111(c) of the conference substi- tute provides that changes in gross receipts categories or steps which otherwise would have occurred on the effective date of sec- tion 111 shall be considered as occurring prior to conVerSlorx. Because of the change from adjusted gross postal receipts to revenue units for determin- ing class of office and category, some post offices, classified as fourth-class offices on July 1, 1964, will not fail within the revenue unit categories prescribed in the new sched- ule. In such cages, the offices will be con- tinued as fourth-class post offices until re- classified by operation of other sections of the bill. Postmasters in such offices will con- tinue to receive the 10-percent increase in basic compensation until the salaries are adjusted as otherwise -required. Postal field service annual step increases Section 114(a) of the conference substi- tute extends to all levels of the Postal Field Service Schedule annual step Increases up to step 7. Under present law, only employees in levels I through 6 receive annual. step in- creases up to step 7, and employees in level 7 or above receive annual step increases to steps 2, 3, and 4. and biennial step Increases to steps 5, 6, and 7. The House bill has no comparable pro- visions. Staff allowance for former residents Section 124 of the conference substitute increases the maximum amount available to former Presidents of the United States for compensation payable to their staff employ- ees from the present maximum of $50,000 to $65.000. The House bill has no comparable provi- sion. Trrts II Federal legislative salaries Title LI of the House bill and of the confer- ence substitute both provide increases in rates of compensation for dicers and em- ployees of the legislative branch. Legislative step salaries Subsections (e) through (h) of section 202 of the conference substitute contain the usual authority relating to Senate employ- ees in the following respects. Subsection (e) reserves to individual Senators the authority to determine whether Increases provided by the bill shall apply to members of their own staffs. Subsection (f) provides increases for employees of the Senate whose compensation has been fixed by law at gross rates. These increases will be comparable to the increases granted under section 202,a) of the confer- ence substitute. Subsection (g) increases the gross compensation limitation for Senate employees from $18,880 to $22945. Subsec- tion lb) increases the limitation on the gross rate per hour of employees in the Sen- ate folding room. Section 202(1) of the conference substi- tute increases the gross rate of compensation of the Postmaster of the Senate to $18.420 and the gross rate of the Assistant Postmas- ter of the Senate to $14,570. This subsection also excludes these two positions from the longevity provisions of section 106 of thi Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 196: (76 Stat. 694: Public Law 87-730). Section 203(g) provides a rate of conspen sation of $27,500 per annum for the Score tary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arras o the Senate, and the Legislative Counsel o the Senate. Section 233(h) provides a rate of compen sation of 515,000 per annum for the Chaolaii of the Senste. The House bill contained no similar provi Mons relating to Senate employees. Officirs of the legislative branch. Section 203 of the House bill and seetioi 203 of the conference substitute both so tab lists annual rates of compensation for cer Lain officers of the legislative branch. A coon parison of toe annual rates of basic compen melon for these officers is set forth below: Poet .,on title ke,istant Com itroller General_ General Cour al of General Atrounting office T.ibrarian of I 't nc?ress Pul,lie I'rinter _ _ Arehitect of liu ( 'apitol__ _ Deput y Pubic I- rin tcr I )eput y Lihrar- a II of Congtessi Assi,tant An bitect of the Capitol... .. 2.1 .1ssi,tant Architect of the Capitol Hodge bill C onfe -ene subst tete $25,000 $15.51 28,000 :7,01 28,000 17,01 2,_8, 000 17,01 28.000 17,01 27 , OM 25,51 27, t100 25, It 27,000 25, 5C 20,0(8) 23,51 TTTLE no Federal Executive Salaries Title III of the House bill and title II of the confsrence substitute both provid for a Federa. Executive Salary Schedule ant make necessary conforming changes in exist ing law. The major differences are discusses below. Federal executive salary schedule The House bill establishes six salary level. for the Federal Executive Salary Schedule The conference substitute establishes five such levels. A comparison of the anrual rates of basic compensation of such levels In the House bill and in the conference sub- stitute is set f orth below: IInuse bill Conference subsiitt te Level I I 5.32, 500 Level II 30,0(30 Level III._ 29,83) Level IV 28,38) Level V. 27,9)0 Level VI _ 26,0(8) $35,000 30,000 28,500 27.000 26. 000 The House bill makes specific assignments of executive positions to level I. level II, level III, and positions held by members of certain boards and commissions to level IV. Also, the House bill authorizes the President to assign posstions to level IV, level V. and level VI. Sections 303 ( a) through 303 ie) of the con- ference substitute specify positions for all live levels prescribed by the conference st b- stitute. A comparison showing the different assign- ments by the conference substitute of cer- tain positions specifically assigned by the House bill is set forth below: Specific position assignments to diff in nt levels Il miss ConferethT Administrator. Federal Aviation Agency Secn butes of Air Force, Army, and Navy .stolicitor General of the rolled States Director of Selective Service (pment Ineunibent) Meniberi, Connell of Economic Advisers H. (Presidential authority) ; (('residential authority) IV. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP6.6.B_Q.0403R000500050001-9 17281 19t4. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? Hou Presidential authority Section 303(1) of the conference substi- tute grants authority to the President to place offices and positions held by not to ex- ceed 30 persons in levels IV and V of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule when he deems such action necessary to reflect changes in organization, management re- sponsibilities, or workload. The subsection also requires that, in the case of an office to which appointment is made by the Presi- dent by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the President may use such authority only at the time of the new ap- pointment. Action by the President under this subsection is required to be published in the Federal Register except when it is de- termined by the President that such publi- cation would be contrary to the interest of the national security. The authority will not apply to any office or position the com- pensation for which is fixed at a specific rate by section 303 of the conference substitute or by statute enacted subsequent to the date of enactment of this legislation. Section 303(g) authorizes the President to place in levels IV and V offices and positions, the duties and responsibilities of which he deems appropriate for such levels, held by not to exceed 30 persons. The authority un- der this subsection relates to positions which are in addition to positions listed in sub- sections (d) and (e) of section 303 and which are in addition to the positions acted upon pursuant to subsection (f) of section 303. The authority under this subsection shall not apply with respect to any office Or position the compensation for which is fixed at a specific rate by section 303 of the con- ference substitute or by statute enacted sub- sequent to the date of enactment of this act. Presidential staff Section 304(b) of the conference substi- tute adds the position of the Executive Sec- retary of the National Aeronautics and Space Council to the 15 positions for which the House bill authorizes the President, under section 105 of title 3, United States Code, to fix rates of basic compensation at a rate not to exceed the rate for level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule. Conforming changes in existing law Section 305 and section 306 of both the House bill and the conference substitute re- peal or amend provisions of existing law to bring existing law into conformity with the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964. The conference substitute omits one re- pealer contained in the House bill (sec. 305(41) ) relating to the annual salaries for not more than three positions of Deputy Governor, Farm Credit Administration. The conference substitute adds another repealer not contained in the House bill (sec. 305(41) ) relating to the rate of com- pensation for the Special Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Medical Affairs), De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Section 306 of the conference substitute omits an amending change of the House bill (sec. 306(h) ) relating to the compensation of the U.S. representatives and alternates at the sessions of the general council and at sessions of the executive committee of the International Refugee Organization. Staff of Advisory Commission on Intergov- ernmental Relations Section 306(e) of the House bill, relating to the maximum compensation payable to the staff of the Advisory Commission on In- tergovernmental Relations, increased the present maximum of $20,000 per annum to the rate for level VI of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule. Section 306(e) of the conference substitute increases such maximum to a rate not in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949. No. 149---19 Director, Division of Military Application, Atomic Energy Commission Section 306(1) (8) of the House bill, re- lating to the maximum aggregate compen- sation of the active member of the Armed Forces serving as Director of the Division of Military Application in the Atomic Energy Commission, increases such maximum to the "compensation for directors of other pro- gram divisions." It was contemplated that such compensation would be the rate for 03-18 unless the President were to assign such other program director positions to levels IV, V, or VI of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule as provided for under the House bill. Section 306(f) (8) of the conference sub- stitute increases such maximum to the "com- pensation established for this position pur- suant to section 303 or section 309 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964." The effect of the conference substitute is to limit the maximum aggregate compensation to the salaries of level IV or V of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule if the President assigns the position to either of such levels; but if he does not, the maximum will not exceed the rate for G3-18. Officers of the District of Columbia Section 306(1) of the House bill and sec- tion 306(i) of the conference substitute both relate to the compensation of officials of the District of Columbia. The conference sub- stitute provides rates $1,000 less in certain cases than the rates provided in the House bill. A comparison of the rates for those officials for which the rates are different is set forth below: Position Salary rates House bill Conference substitute President, District of Columbia Board of Commissioners $27, 000 $26, 000 Other District of Columbia Commissioners 26, 600 25, 500 Chief judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals 26, 000 26, 000 Other judges, District of Columbia Court of Appeals 25, 500 24, 500 Chief judge, District of Columbia court of general sessions 25, 000 24, 000 Other judges, District of Columbia court of general sessions 24, 500 23, 500 Judge, District of Columbia Tax Court 24, 500 23, 500 Limitations on salaries fixed by administra- tive action Section 308 of the House bill limits the salary-fixing authority of the heads of ex- ecutive departments and agencies by pro- viding that hereafter they may not fix rates In excess of the highest rate for grade GS- 18 of the General Schedule of the Classifica- tion Act of 1949, The House bill exempted from this limitation authorities contained in the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403a), the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831b), sec- tion 9 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1819), and section 5240, Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481, relating to the Comptroller of the Currency). Section 308 of the conference substitute adds one additional authority to the ex- emptions, which is section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) . Miscellaneous executive positions Section 309 of the House bill requires the placement in the appropriate grade of the Classification Act of 1949 of any office or position in the executive branch not placed In a level of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule under section 303 of the House bill but which is affected by any change in exist- ing law under section 305 of the House bill. Section 309 of the conference substitute provides that each such office or position shall be compensated at a rate equal to the rate of a grade and step of the General Sched- ule of the Classification Act of 1949. In addition, the conference substitute applies this policy to other offices and positions in the executive branch for which the annual salary is established, at a figure of $18,500 or more, pursuant to a special provision of law enacted prior to the date of enactment of the conference substitute. The conference sub- stitute contains a further provision (not in the House bill) to the effect that all actions taken under section 309 of the conference substitute shall be reported to the U.S. Civil Service Commission and published in the Federal Register, except when the President determines that such report and publication would be contrary to the interest of national security. TITLE Iv Federal Judicial salaries Sectign 402(a) of the House bill provides increases in rates of compensation for cer- tain specified employees of the judicial branch of the Government. The increases will be in amounts corresponding to the in- creases under section 102 of the bill for Classification Act employees. Section 402(a) of the conference substi- tute has the same coverage as the House bill but includes an additional provision which has the effect of authorizing the Di- rector of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to determine the amount of the in- creases for employees appointed pursuant to section 604(a) (5) of title 28, United States Code, who hold "ungraded positions." Graded positions are those under the judi- ciary salary plan approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The un- graded positions are clerks of court, Register of Wills of the District of Columbia, the pretrial examiners in the District of Colum- bia and in New York, and the assistant pre- trial examiner in the District of Columbia. Section 403 of the House bill and section 403 of the conference substitute both pro- vide increases in the compensation of Fed- eral judges, the Director and Deputy Direc- tor of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Commissioners of the Court of Claims. The conference substitute changes the rates provided by the House bill for the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Director and Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and for the Com- missioners of the Court of Claims as indi- cated below: Position House bill Conference substitute Chief Justice of the United States $43, 000 $40, 000 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States 42, 500 39, 500 Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 28,000 27,000 DeputyDirector, Administrative Office of the -U.S. Courts 27,050 26, 000 Commissioners, Court of Claims 27,000 26,000 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17282 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE AuguN 3 Time v Salary relationships in Federal executive. Judicial, congressional, and career salaries (House bill) Title V of the House bill provided for the establishment and maintenance, on a per- manent basis, of salary relationships with respect to Federal executive. Judicial. con- gressional, and career salaries. This title, which consisted of section 501, contained, in section 501(a), a statement of policy with respect to the desirability of maintaining and continuing, on a permanent_ basis. the salary relationships established by the House bill among and between the salary rates of (a) the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949 and the Postal Field Service Schedule in title I of the House bill: (b) Members of Congress and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in title IT; (c) Fed- eral executives in title III; and (d) Federal Judges ill title IV. In order to implement this policy. section 501(b) provided, in effect, that, whenever in the future the salary rates of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949 shall have been increased by law, the salary rates of officers and positions in the cate- gories referred to above would be increased automatically in accordance with a formula designed to provide increases in such rates proportionate to the General Schedule salary rate increases. The Senate amendment did not contain comparable provisions. The conference substitute omits these pro- visions of title V of the House bill. TITLE VI Effective dates Title VI of the House bill and title V of the conference substitute both relate to the ef- fective dates for the various provisions of the bill. Section 601 (al of the House bill provides that, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), the increases in compensation would become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after the date of enactment. Section 801(b) provided that increases for Members of Congress would become effective at. noon, January 3, 1985. Section 801(c) prohibits any rate of com- pensation from being increased to an amount per annum in excess of $22,000 until the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after January 1, 1965. Section 501(a) of the conference substitute provides as an effective date the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after July 1, 1964, except as provided in subsec- tions (b) and (ci of the section. Because the effective date of section 105, relating to the classification of post offices, is later than July 1. 1964, it will not disturb the classifica- tion of post offices made on July 1, 1964. The first general reclassification under the revi- sion made by this legislation will occur on July 1, 1985. Section 501 (13 ) of the conference substi- tute contains the same effective date. noon. January 3, 1965, for Members of Congress as contained in the House bill. Section 501(c) of the conference substi- tute provides that the rates for officers and employees of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate shall not be increased above $22,000 per annum until the first day of he first pay period which begins on or after January 1, 1965. The limitation in the con- ference substitute applies only to certain rates in title IT of the bill and not to rates in other titles of the bill as did the House provision. Section 501(d) r)f the conference substi- tute provides that, for the purpose of deter- mining the amount of Insurance for which an officer or employee is eligible under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1054 (5 U.S.C. 2091-2103), all changes in rates of compensation which result from the enactment of the conference substitute shall be held and construed to be effective as Of the date of enactment. Section 502 of the conference substitute provides that, except for employees who died or retired during the retroactive period, the payment of retroactive compensation Will be made only in the case of individuals in the service of the United States (including serv- ice in the Armed Forces of the United States) or of the Municipal government of the Dis- trict of Columbia on the date of enactment. Retroactive payment also would be made for services rendered during the retroactive pe- riod in the case of employees who retired or died during such period. The conference substitute also provides that such retroactive compensation shall not be considered as basic compensation for the purpose of the Civil Service Retirement Act in the case of any such retired or deceased officer or employee. The House bill contained no provision sim- ilar to section 502 of the conference substi- tute. Tom MURRAY. JAMES H. MORRISON. ROBERT J. CORBETT, Managers on the Part of the Boyar ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAM t Mr. ALBERT asked and was given Permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to announce an addition to the pro- gram of the House. The Committee on House Administra- tion, tomorrow, will call up House Reso- lution 719 and House Resolution 800. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unaniznous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted to: Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana (at the re- quest of Mr. MORRISON/ , for an indefinite period, on account of illness. Mr. RoliF.RTS of Alabama (at the re- quest of Mr. JENNINGS), for today, to- morrow, and Wednesday, on account of illness. Mr. WAILHAUSER ( at the request of Mr. HALLECK , for an indefinite period, on account of illness. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the legis- lative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to: Mr. TiroMPsON of Texas, for 30 min- utes. today; to revise and extend his re- marks. and include extraneous matter. Mr. OLSEN of Montana, for 1 hour, today. Mr. LAIRD. for 15 minutes. tomorrow. August 4. Mr HALPERN at the request of Mr. SCHADEBERG I, for 10 minutes, today, and to revise and extend his remarks and in- chide extraneous matter. Mr. SCHWENGEL (at the request of Mr. SCHADEBERG) , for 30 minutes, today, and to revise and extend his remarks and in- clude extraneous matter. EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to extend remarks in the Appendix of th e RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to: Mr. HAYS and to include extraneot s matter. Mr. PAT'MAN in three instances and to Include extraneous matter. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina ill two instances and to include extraneous matter. Mr. Gnoss. Mr. WYMAN asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 1 min- ute .rid to revise and extend his re- marks and to include extraneous matter and that his remarks follow the remarks of Mr. ALBERT. Mr. HALL after passing over H.R. 380C, Calendar No. 387 on the Consent Cal- endar. Mr. WHITENER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the body of the RECORD following action on the bill H.R. 1096, Mr. KASTENMEIER immediately pre?? ceding the vote on the military pay raise bill. Mr. DOLE to extend his remarks fol.. lowing those of Mr. ASPINALL on H.R. 3071. Mr. BETTS and to include extraneous matter. Mr. PHILBIN in eight instances. Mr. GILL (at the request of Mr. MAT- SUNAGA) to extend his remarks in the body of the RECORD immediately prior tc the passage of S. 1991. Mr. DORN and to include extraneous matter. (The following Members (at the re- quest of Mr. SCHADEBERG) and to include extraneous matter:) Mr. DERWINSKL Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. MOORE in three instances. Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. WYMAN in three instances. Mr. SCHWENGEL in two instances. Mr. TOLLEFSON in two instances. Mr. LINDSAY in five instances. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. BATES. (The following Members (at the re- nclude extraneous matter:) Mr. PEPPER. Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina in two instances. Mr. ROGERS of Florida in eight in- stances. Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. PULToN of Tennessee. Mr. Powen.. Mr. BURKHALTER, Mr. RAINS itl two instances. Mr. RIVERS of Alaska. Mr. WHITENER in four instances. Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. MASON. quest of Mr. MATSUNAGA) and to i SENATE BILLS REFERRED Bills of the Senate of the following titles were taken from the Speaker's Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 /964 Approved For:mmaggoR 8R:E?:16kR-IV_P67113j):It4s0E3R000500050001-9 Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appre- ciate what the gentleman has said, but I would like to support a carefully writ- ten legislative standard. It seems to me that the standard here is altogether too general and leaves everything up to Mr. McNamara. There is no need for this looseness, particularly in view of the Sec- retary's manifest attitude toward public yards. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker. In my opinion this is the death knell of the Government-owned shipyards. I have the Boston Navy Shipyard in my district. I have seen it go down from 11.000 to about 8,000. Here is a shipyard that is Important. It is closest to the Atlantic Ocean and closest to Europe. An amendment of this type is indeed bad for the morale of the entire yard. I hope the House will vote no in favor of the Federal shipyards. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker. I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER1, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RIVERS]. Mr. Speaker. I have always opposed the so-called 65135 formula here under dis- cussion, because it sets up an inflexible situation to the detriment of our Navy. The Senate amendment which we are now being asked to accept sets up an even more intolerable situation than that which was provided under the original House version. The Senate amendment provides that "at least 35 percentum" of the funds appropriated for the repair, al- teration and conversion of naval vessels shall be allocated to privately owned shipyards. This means that the private shipyards are guaranteed a minimum allocation of 35 percent of all repair, alteration and conversion jobs, while the naval shipyards are without any guar- antee. If we adopt the Senate amend- ment, we would be making it legally pos- sible for the Secretary of Defense to allo- cate 100 percent of all repair, alteration and conversion work to private shipyards. It appears that the private shipyard owners are no longer satisfied with 35 percent of the jobs, and its powerful lobby is flexing its muscles for a complete takeover. Concededly, private enterprise ought to be given its fair share of Gov- ernment contracts, and I am not opposed to private enterprise. But where our Navy is concerned, our primary consider- ation should be directed toward what is best for our own national defense and security. Our Navy should not be saddled with inflexibility of the Senate amend- ment. Repair, alteration, or conversion of its vessels should be allowed wherever it can be done most efficiently and expe- ditiously, for the Navy is undeniably an emergency arm of our Nation which must be kept in constant readiness, if it is to he kept at all. The incident only a few days ago in the Gulf of Tonkin in which the destroyer U.S.S. Maddox was the intended victim of an unannounced sneak attack illus- trates this truth with dramatic force. The attack on the Maddox should serve to remind us that warfare invariably starts without any warning. Those of us who were in Hawaii when Pearl Harbor was bombed have not forgotten this. Let us be reminded by the Maddox incident that if it had not been for the efficient, dedicated team of Federal workers at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, our Navy would never have made the amazing re- covery in the short time that it did. If our Navy is to be kept at all, it must be maintained at a level where it can meet any and all emergencies at any time. This it cannot do without a dependable, ever-ready crew of well trained, highly experienced repairmen at a readily ac- cessible shipyard. Maintenance of our naval shipyards, such as the one at Pearl Harbor, therefore, must be considered as part and parcel of our Navy. To detract from this proposition is to weaken our Navy and endanger our own national security. The Senate amendment tends to do this and should be defeated. (Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point that the language in this conference report differs in no substantial way from the language already adopted by the House of Repre- sentatives in the original House bill; is that correct? Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is cor- rect. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a vote. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MmioN] . The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CELLER) there were?ayes 78, noes 84. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed as tellers Mr. MAHON and Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina. The House again divided, and the tellers reported that there were?ayes 95, noes 101. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were?yeas 186, nays 178, not voting 67, as follows: Roll No. 2011 YEAS-1813 Abele 13olton. Burke Abernethy Frances P. Burleson Anderson Bol ton, Burton, Utah Andrews, Ala. Olivor P. Byrnes, Wis, Andrews, Bonner Cahill N. flak. Bow Casey Arend/3 Bradernas Cederberg Ashbreark Bray Chamberlain Ayres Brock Chelf Baker Bromwell Chenoweth Becker Brooks Clancy Beermann Broomfield Cobelan Belcher Brotzman Collier Bell Brown, Ohio Colmer Bennett. Fla. Broyhill, N.C. Conte Berry Broyhill, Va. Corbett Betts Bruce Cramer Cunningham Denton Derwinskl Devine Dole Dowdy Duncan Dwyer Edmondson Fallon Faacell Feighan Findley Flynt Fogarty Ford Foreman Fountain Frellnghuysen Fulton, Pa. Fuqua Gary Claim? Gibbons Glenn Goodell Goodling Grabowski Green, Oreg. Griffin Griffiths Gross Gurney Hagen, Calif. Hall lialleek Hansen Harrison Haraha Harvey, Ind. "Lechler Hoeven Horan Hutchinson Jarman Jensen Abbitt Addabbo Ashmore Aspinall Auchincloss Baldwin Barrett Barry Bates Blatnik Boland Brown, Calif. Burkhalter Burton, Calif. Byrne, Pa. Cameron Carey Celier Clark Clausen, Don H. Clawson, Del Cleveland Cooley Carman Curtin Daddario Dague Daniels Davis, Oa. Dawson Delaney Dent Derounian Donohue Dorn Downing Dulski Edwards Elliott Everett Farhstein Fino Fisher Flood Fraser Gallagher Gathings Gilbert Gill Gonzalez Grant Gray Green, Pa. Grover Gubser Johansen Jon ELS Kastenmeier Keith Kilgore King. Calif. Kirtvan Knox Kornegay Kunkel Kyl Lair d Lan gen Lan a Lips comb Lon r. Md. McC tory McCulloch McLoskey MacGregor Mahon Manin, Calif. Martin, Nebr. Mataras Matthews May Mea.ler Michel Miller, Calif. Minshall Monagan Moore Mon Is Morton Moalier Natcher Nelsen 0?Konskl Ostertag Patnian Pelly Perkms Pickle Pillion Poago NAYS-178 Hagan. Ga. Haley Halpern Hanna Harding Hardy Harris Hawkins Hays Hencilrson Holifleld Horton Hosmer Hudd lesion Jennings Joelson Johnson, Calif. Robison Johnson, Pa. Rodin? Johnson, Wis. Rogers, Colo. Jones. Ala. Rooney, N.Y. Kartl, RooiaeY, Pa. Kelly Roosevelt Keogh Rosenthal 17313 Poff Quie Quillen Reid, Ill. Relfel Rhodes, Ariz. Rich Roberts, Tex. Rog,ers, Fla. Rogers, Tex. Roudebush Roush St Germain St. Onge Sehadeberg Short Sibal Sickles Sikes Slier Smith, Calif. Smith, Iowa Snyder Springer Stafford Steed Stinson Stubblefield Taft Talcott Teague, Calif. Teague, Tex. Thomas Thompson Tex. Thomson, Wis. Tuck Udall Unman Un Van Pelt Westland White Whitten Williams Wilson, Ind, Wright Olson, Minn. O'Neill Osmers Patten Pepper Philbin Pike Pitcher Pirnie Price Pueinski Reid, N.Y. Reuss Rhodes. Pa Rivers, Alaska Rivers, S.C. King, N.Y. Kluezynski Leggett Llbonati Lindsay Long, La. McDa?le McDowell McFall McIntire MchiElan Macdonald Madden Mal third Marsh Martin Mass. Matsunaga Mintsh Montoya Moorhead Mor4an Morrison Morse Moss Multe7 Murphy, Ill. Murphy, N.Y. Murray O'Brien, N.Y. O'Hara, Ill O'Hara, Mich Olsen, Mont, Rostenkowski Roybal Ryan, N.Y. St. George Saylor Schenck Schneebeli Schwelker Secre.st Selden Senn.r Sisk Slack Smith, Va. Staggers Stephens Stratton Sullivan Taylor Thompson, N.J. Tolleson Trimble Tupper Tuten Van Deerlin Yank Vinson Waggonner Watson Watts Weltner Whalley Wharton Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP66BODSF000500050001-9 17316 CONGRESSIONAL itEC;ORD August 4 Whitener Wickersham Widnall Willis Wilson, Charles H. Winstead Wydler Wyman. Young Younger Zablocki NOT VOTING-6'7 Adair Garmatz Albert Harvey, Mich. Alger Healey Ashley Hebert Avery Herlong Baring Hoffman Bass Holland Battin Hull Beckworth Ichord Bennett, Mich. Jones, Mo, Boggs Karsten Bolling Kee Buckley Kilburn Curtis Landrum Davis, Tenn. Lankford Diggs Lennon Dingell Lesinski Ellsworth Lloyd Evins Miller, N.Y. Finnegan Nedzi Forrester Nix Friedel Norblad Fulton, Tenn. Passman Pool Powell Purcell Rains Randall Riehlman Roberts, Ala. Rumsfeld Ryan, Mich. Schwengel Scott Sheppard Shipley Shriver Skubitz Staebler Thompson, La. Toll Wallhauser Weaver Wilson, Bob So the motion was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Shipley for, with Mr. Hebert against. Mr. Garmatz for, with Mr. Toll against. Mr. Lankford for, with Mr. Nix against. Mr. Scott for, with Mr. Karsten against. Mr. Beckworth for, with Mr. Buckley against. Mr. Friedel for, with Mr. Powell against. Mr. Alger for, with Mr. Riehlman against. Mr. Adair for, with Mr. Weaver against. Mr. Ellsworth for, with Mr. Wallhauser against. Mr. Schwengel for, with Mrs. Kee against. Mr. Shriver for, with Mr. Healey against. Mr. Skubitz for, with Mr. Sheppard against. Mr. Battin for, with Mr. Finnegan against. Mr. Rumsfeld for, with Mr. Ashley against. Until further notice: Mr. Albert with Mr. Avery. Mr. Hull with Mr. Kilburn. Mr. Ichord with Mr. Bennett of Michigan. Mr. Evins with Mr. Bob Wilson. Mr. Roberts of Alabama with Mr. Norblad. Mr. Rains with Mr. Curtis. Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Har- vey of Michigan. Mr. Randall with Mr. Dingell. Mr. Passman with Mr. Lesinski. Mx. Lennon with Mr. Baring. Mr. Holland with Mr. Diggs. Mr. Pool with Mr. Ryan of Michigan. Mr. Boggs with Mr. Bass. Mr. Forrester with Mr. Davis of Tennessee. Mr. Herlong with Mr. Staebler. Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Necizi. Mr. Purcell with Mr. Landrum. Mr. COOLEY changed his vote from "yea" to "nay." Mr. AYRES changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members speak- ing on the conference report and the motion just agreed to be permitted to ex- tend their remarks thereon. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. COMMITTEE ON RULES Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules have until midnight tonight to file certain privileged resolutions. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ala- bama? There was no objection. TO AMEND THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, FREE IMPORTATION OF WILD ANIMALS AND WILD BIRDS Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to take from the Speak- er's desk the bill (H.R. 1839) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide for the free importation of wild animals and wild birds which are intended for exhi- bition in the United States, with a Sen- ate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ar- kansas? Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Objection is he GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACI' OF 1964 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic com- pensation of certain officers and employ- ees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous con- sent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of August 3, 1964.) Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. CORBETT], and pending that I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. Speaker, HR. 11049, an act to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other pur- poses, passed the House on June 12, 1964, and was amended in the other body. The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses rec- ommends that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate with an amendment which is a substitute for both the House bill and the Senate amendment. The conference substitute fully effects the purposes of the House bill. These purposes are first, to comply partially with the mandate, laid down by the Con- gress in Public Law 87-793, that postal and other Federal career employees shall be paid salaries comparable to salaries paid workers in private enterprise for comparable levels of responsibility, skill, and performance, and second, to partially remedy the serious inadequacies in the Federal executive, congressional, and judicial salary structure. The confer- ence report is unanimous and is signed by all conferees on the part of the House and on the part of the Senate. I hope the conference report will be approved. The conference substitute grants postal and other career employees salary in- creases as provided in the House bill, but corrects an inequity with respect to the salaries of employees in the middle salary grades. It guarantees a minimum 3- percent increase for grades GS-9 through GS-12 of the Classification Act, whereas increases in these grades were as low as 1.6 percent in the House bill. A similar minimum will apply with respect to two salary increases for other categories of employees covered by the bill. The conference substitute also pro- vides a new salary scale for postmasters in fourth-class post offices granting in- creases for these postmasters which are more in line with increases for other em- ployees than provided by the House bill. These postmasters will receive increases ranging from 10 percent in the highest group of offices to 15 percent in the lower levels. The conference substitute extends to all levels of postal field service employees annual step increases through the first seven automatic salary steps, whereas under present law only those postal em- ployees in the lowest six salary levels receive such annual increases. The House bill would have continued the ex- isting automatic step increase provi- sions?that is, they would have been lim- ited to the first six salary levels. Other changes made by the confer- ence substitute in the House bill include, first, a requirement for Civil Service Commission approval of any proposed new appointment to a Classification Act position at higher than the initial sal- ary step; second, omission of the exemp- tion from certain limitations of the Clas- sification Act for supergrade positions concerned with research and develop- ment in the physical and natural sci- ences and medicine; third, the fixing of a maximum limitation of 249 hearing examiner positions at grades 16 and 17 which are exempt from the existing ag- gregate numerical limitation on all su- pergrade position; and fourth, the inclu- sion of a provision of the Senate amend- ment increasing the allowance to former Presidents for staff salaries by $15,000. The conference substitute contains the provisions of the House bill for ad- justment of salary rates of House officers and employees, and adds the provisions of the Senate amendment providing sal- ary adjustments for Senate officers and employees. The conference substitute provides a salary for the Assistant Comptroller General of the United States of $28,500, the same as the salary for executive salary level III in the Senate amendment and the conference substitute. The House bill provided a salary of $29,000 for such executive level III and for the Assistant Comptroller General. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONA1 RECORD ? HOUSE 17317 Similarly, the conference substitute provides salaries of $27,000?equal to the salary rate for executive level IV for the general counsel of the General Account- ing Office, the Librarian of Congress, the Public Printer, and the Architect of the Capitol. The House bill provided salaries of $28,000 equal to the executive salary level IV of the House bill, for these positions. The salaries of the Deputy Public Printer, the Deputy Librarian of Con- gress, and the Assistant Architect of the Capitol are fixed at $25,500 by the con- ference substitute, representing a com- promise between the House bill figure of $27,000 and the Senate amendment figure of $24,500. A related compromise places the salary of the Second Assistant Architect of the Capitol at $23,500 in the conference substitute, in lieu of the $26,000 in the House bill and the $22,500 in the Senate bill. The conference substitute adopts the five executive salary levels and the sal- aries for such levels provided in the Sen- ate amendment. The salary for Cabinet officers?executive level I?is $35,000, or $2,500 more than provided in the House bill. The salary for executive level II Is $30,000, as in both the House bill and .the Senate amendment. The salaries for executive levels III, IV, and V are $28,500, $27,000, and $26,000, respectively, compared to $29,000, $28,000, and $27,000 in the House bill. The conference substitute makes specific position assignments to all five executive levels, as in the Senate amend- ment, whereas the House bill made such specific assignments only for the highest three levels and authorized the Presi- dent to place such positions as he might deem proper in executive levels IV, V. and VI?with level VI of the House bill omitted from the conference substitute. Since the Senate amendment made a number of specific position assignments to executive levels IV and V but did not make such specific assignments for cer- tain other positions which have been recommended for executive levels, and in view of the "open-end" authorization in the House bill for the President to place positions in the executive levels IV and below, the conference substitute con- tains a compromise between the House bill and the Senate amendment provi- sions in this respect by authorizing the President to place positions held but not to exceed 60 persons in executive levels IV and V. The conference substitute also makes certain changes in the assignment of positions to executive levels II, III, and IV, for which differing specific assign- ments among such levels were made in the House bill and the Senate amend- ment. These few positions are listed on page 46 of the statement of managers. The conference substitute adopts the salary rates provided by the Senate amendment for officers and judges of the District of Columbia?which are $1,000 below the House bill salaries in each case?except that it contains the House bill salaries for the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, the Fire Chief, and the Chief of Police. The conference substitute provides a salary of $40,000 for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and of $39,500 for the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. This is $3,000 less than the salaries provided in the House bill, but $2,000 more than the salaries provided by the Senate amend- ment. The salaries of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Deputy Director, and the Commissioners of the Court of Claims are fixed at $27,000, $26,000, and $26,000, respectively?or $1,000 below the House figures in each case. As in the case of the legislative officers mentioned earlier, these adjusted salary rates are keyed to appropriate executive salary rates in the conference substitute. The conference substitute does not in- clude title V contained in the House bill, which would have provided for automatic future adjustments of salary rates for Members of Congress and Federal exec- utives and judges in conformity with fu- ture increases in Classification Act salary rates. The conference substitute makes all salary increases provided therein effec- tive on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after July 1, 1964, except that the salary adjustments for Members of Congress will take effect at noon on January 3, 1965. However, as is neces- sary and customary where retroactive salary increases are granted, for the purpose of fixing the amount of group life insurance the new salary rates are held to be effective as of date of enact- ment. Similarly, the retroactive salary increase will be paid generally only to employees on the rolls on the date of enactment, except that it will be paid to anyone who retired during the retro- active period for services actually ren- dered after the effective date and up to retirement date. The retroactive in- crease will not be considered basic salary for Retirement Act purposes in the case of such retirees. The effect of these special limitations with respect to the retroactive part of the salary increases will take place in every instance at a point of time between the effective date of July 1, 1964, as provided by the Senate amendment, and the effec- tive date of the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after date of en- actment as provided in the House bill. There can be no question of their pro- priety in the conference substitute as an adjustment between the provisions of the House bill and of the Senate amendment relating to the time the new salaries shall be effective. Mr. Speaker, I have summarized all of the differences of any considerable im- portance between the House bill and the conference substitute. I hope that the conference substitute will be approved. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michi- gan [Mr. JOHANSEN] . (Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the conference report on H.R. 11049. At the outset, I remind the House that once this year we had the gumption to defeat the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1964. On March 12, the/ House rejected the earlier version of this bill by a substan- tial 222-to-184 vote. We could do it again today. We ought to do it. I have just one observation to offer at this juncture. I offer it not only for such consideration as my colleagues are willing to give it here and now, but also for such consideration as the taxpayers of America may wish to give our action today when they go into the voting booths on November 3. I propose to speak briefly about inte- gration?not the kind of integration that has been the subject of national contro- versy for the past decade, but inte- grated inflation. I respectfully point out that what we are doing today represents one more step in the chain reaction procedure whereby we are tying the Federal salary and em- ployee benefit policies and, indeed, the entire Federal fiscal policy into the total inflationary process in this country. Wage and salary scales in private in- dustry are tied into the cost-of-living index?largely through the escalation clauses of collective bargaining con- tracts. Through adoption of the ill-advised comparability principle, we have tied the Federal wage and salary scales into the private industry wage and salary scale. Through the Udall amendment, it was proposed to tie in congressional salaries through a scheme of automatic increases with any increases made hereafter in the Federal salary scale. I recognize that this noxious provision has been de- leted in conference, but I predict that it will be back. Furthermore, we ought not to forget that the cost of Federal employee fringe benefits is likewise tied in automatically with the salary and wage increases. This fact, which receives little, if any, consideration when this House votes fur- ther salary and wage increases for Fed- eral employees, has become so significant that it occasioned a timely comment the other day by Mr. Joseph Young, who writes "The Federal Spotlight" column in the Washington Star. Mr. Young pointed out that the cost of Government employee fringe benefits has mounted to 23 percent of total payroll?and that is additional to the Federal payroll. Mr. Young further pointed out that this 23 percent added cost of fringe benefits amounts to some $3.5 billion in additional annual costs, over and above the $15 billion annual Federal payroll. And Mr. Young further pointed out, quite correctly, that "every time Govern- ment salaries are increased, the value of the employees' fringe benefits is raised with a resultant increase in cost to the Government." If we adopt this conference report to- day, we are repeating that process. My point is that the net result of this integrated inflation is a progressive loss of control by the Congress and the Amer- ican taxpayer over both the damaging processes of inflation and over the Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 4 mounting costs of Federal Government. Let me observe in passing that there is one all-important difference between the economics of mass production in private industry and the economics of burgeon- ing Federal Government. In private industry, mass production can reduce unit costs. On the other hand, there is no equivalent or corre- sponding reduction in unit cost incident to the massive expansion of the bu- reaucracy. Last week / voted against the social security amendments on the grounds that it further ties the social security program into the inflationary cycle. An opponent back home said my vote "just doesn't make any sense." I suppose by the same standards of fiscal irresponsibility accepted by my op- ponent, "it just doesn't make any sense" to vote against this pay bill. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing that does make any sense is a des- peration effort to put the brake on fiscal policies which make control of inflation progressively difficult, if not impossible. We have the opportunity today to take a major step in this direction by reject- ing this conference report. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentle- man from New Jersey [Mr. DANIELS). (Mr. DANIELS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Speaker, the amendment recommended in the confer- ence report on H.R. 11049 will accom- plish a complete overhaul of the sal- aries in the executive branch. Also it will help bring the salaries of other Federal Government personnel up to date. I would like to reiterate, if I may, a few of the most important aspects of this legislation. In 1962, Congress made the commit- ment to our classified and postal Federal employees, numbering approximately 2 million, that their wages would be com- parable to those in private enterprise. We did this so that they would not be penalized economically for their decision to serve the Federal Government The conference report before us today will determine whether Congress intends to abide by this commitment. Before the comparability principle was introduced, during the period from 1945 to 1960 a haphazard approach to Federal salaries resulted in seven in- creases which averaged 4.1 percent an- nual increases for classified employees and 4.9 percent annual increases for postal employees. The Members of Congress, the high appointive offices in the executive branch, and the Federal judiciary, col- lectively and individually, have an im- mense responsibility. The welfare and very survival of every American rests on the soundness of their decisions. In all other areas of American life, those who are held accountable for important and far-reaching decisions are paid salaries commensurate with their responsibil- ities. It seems only fair that this should also be the case in the Federal Govern- ment. Each member of the board of direc- tors of most major corporations in the United States are paid salaries upward of $40,000 per year. Yet the members of the board of directors of the Nation's largest business, the Congress, receive $22,500 per year. A sampling of 1,157 chins showed that the median salary for the highest officer was $91,000 per year, yet a Federal Cabinet officer who heads a concern larger than most of the firms In that study receives only $25,000 per year and will receive $35,000 under this proposal. Even officials of many of the larger States receive more than that. In these positions of great respon- sibility, it is fallacious to assume that economy will result from paying salaries less than could be obtained elsewhere. These are positions in which we must have qualified administrators and deci- sionmakers. Yet. many of the qualified people appointed to these jobs find that they simply cannot afford to keep them; consequently, they resign. It is false economy to maintain the compensation of the most important and critical Gov- ernment offices at such a level that only the rich can afford them. One of the objections raised earlier to this bill was that it is not economical?the biggest economy we can accomplish is to pay salaries commensurate with responsibili- ties and duties, so that highly qualified People can afford to hold them. The advantageous effects of this leg- islation will be great, not only with re- spect to the highest offices in all three branches of the Government, but in the lower grades and levels as well. The salary structure that we are about to adopt will respond better to the present- day needs of the Government than the system presently in effect, and It will facilitate the recruitment of a high caliber of personnel from top to bot- tom. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 11049 received ex- tensive consideration by the Post Office and Civil Service Committees of both the House and the Senate. The few changes made in the House bill by the conferees were, on the whole, quite fair, and re- sulted in several improvements. This bill is much needed and long overdue. I hope the Members of this great body will join with me in voting for it again today. Mr. CORBkart. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to the gen- tleman from Indiana Mr. Baayl. (Mr. BRAY asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. BRAY. Mr. Speaker, I must again rise in protest to the passage of this un- necessary and unjustified pay increase for Members of Congress. I say unnecessary and unjustified for I sincerely believe it is a mistake to ap- prove this legislation at this time, re- gardless of the merit which some Mem- bers may feel the legislation contains. This legislation means that in the course of the last 10 years the Congress will have increased its salary by 140 per- cent?from $12,500 in 1954 to $30,000 in 1965. We are all thankful that the cost of living has not risen by proportionate leaps and bounds. Had the expenses of the average American increased to that extent within that period we would be undergoing severe economic problems. It is for this reason that I believe we should oppose the conference report for this further pay increase. One of our chief objectives should be to direct eco- nomic forces so as to avoid inflation. Inflation can destroy the value of the dollar, and is especially damaging to re- tired persons living on their savings, pensions, and social security payments. The ultimate effects of runaway infla- tion would be hard to foretell, but we know it could cause great damage to un- told millions of Americans. The House rejected this pay legisla- tion on March 12, but, at the insistence of President Johnson, it was revived. As for the necessity of increases to var- ious classes of Federal Government em- ployees. such increases should have been considered on their own, and not all tied together with huge raises for the Con- gress, the Cabinet, and the courts. I spoke against this congressional in- crease and voted against it when it was before the House in March and June, and I repeat my opposition at this time. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- fornia (Mr. ROOSEVELT). Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker. I in- tend to vote for this conference report but I cannot help but comment that it seems unfortunate that the conferees did not see lit to restore the Supreme Court salary ratio to what it had been as passed In the House bill. The compromise be- tween the House and the Senate, it seems to me, leaves nobody satisfied. I hope that at some future date, and a date not too far distant, the salary positions of the Supreme Court Justices may achieve the parity which I believe they require in our form of government. The rest of the bill, Mr. Speaker, achieves two fundamental objectives: First, it brings the great body of gov- ernmental employees more in line with the pay scales of those in private employ- ment. Second, it makes it more possible for the Executive to attract effective ca- pable private citizens for important pub- lic service. The public Is well served by this legislation. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which as I pointed out the other day, has been be- fore us since May of 1963, has been worked, reworked, debated, argued over, discussed by all the newspapers and com- mentators and eventually now we reached the point where the conferees met on this bill. We had an exceedingly fine meeting with the managers on the part of the Senate. We were able to com- promise differences. We were able to come out with language which we believe Is just as fair as the boundaries of the two bills would possibly permit. Having done this, we recognize that in every piece of salary legislation or any reclassification act, there are areas or in- dividuals that have not received an equi- table increase 'or equitable treatment. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196.4 Approved ForRelea_se.2_005/Q5/18.? CLA.RDP6680H03R000500050001-9 17319 CONGRESSION AL ithancll riu-u These things can only be corrected by later legislation. It is assumed on the basis of existing law that it is required that Federal em- ployees be kept at comparable salary levels with people in private industry and we will have an opportunity to correct any inequities that may become evident. It is also true with regard to a num- ber of individuals who are members of commissions arid boards and who are in the executive offices that we had no lati- tude within which to work and conse- quently we gave that power in the han- dling of some 60 positions to the Execu- tive. I believe, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we now, with the House having voted by a clear majority for the revised bill, with the Senate having voted it by a clear majority, and with the conferees having agreed unanimously that this conference report can be upheld and that it can be voted for. I think that when we have done this, we will have taken a very long and very proper step toward creating the comparability that has become the guid- ing policy regarding Federal salaries. Mr. Speaker, I urge that the confer- ence report be voted up favorably. I ex- press the hope that since this is an ad- ministration bill strongly backed by the President that it will soon be enacted into law and that our employees will be- gin to receive the benefits of this very fine piece of legislation. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CORBETT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise hi opposition to the conference report. It Is completely beyond my comprehension how the Members of Congress, through another pay bill, can with any conscience, add another half-billion dollars to the huge debt and deficit of this country. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill, and to the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may extend my remarks follow- ing the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT]. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AL- BERT) . Without objection, it is so or- dered. There was no objection. Mr. CORBETT. May I ask the gentle- man in return, if he opposed the military pay raise bill yesterday which is the sec- ond one brought in since October of 1963. Mr. GROSS. No; I did not oppose the military pay bill yesterday. I did not oppose the bill that was passed a few months ago. If the gentleman will permit me to make one other observation, the military has lagged behind the civilian payroll for a long time. I am sure the gentleman will agree to that. Mr. CORBETT. I certainly will agree to that and I will agree further that the gentleman from Iowa has made a very sincere and lengthy opposition to this bill. For those who agree with him, I believe the gentleman should be complimented on his efforts. I hope he will return the compliments to the committee and to No. 150-4 the majority of the House and Senate, who have worked just as hard and just as sincerely for passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the adop- tion of this conference report and en- actment of this legislation is apparently a foregone conclusion. That the bill will be signed by Presi- dent Johnson is also a foregone conclu- sion. Despite the fact that the same Lyndon Johnson has called on private in- dustry and labor to hold the line on prices and wages, he will now, and with the greatest of ease, sign this legislation giving lavish pay increases of 33 percent and more to members of Congress and others in the executive and judicial branches of Government. As I have repeatedly stated, this bill will add a minimum of $540 million to the debt and deficit of the Federal Gov- ernment and further fuel the fire of in- flation that is steadily eroding the value of the dollar. It is entirely fitting, in view of Lyndon Johnson's high pressure support for this bill, that on tomorrow the House will begin debate on the same Lyndon John- son's politically inspired war on poverty bill. The premium in Washington continues to be on extravagance in the operation of the Federal Government and on double talk. Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Members of the House will stand and be counted on the final vote today on the biggest single pay raise ever approved in the history of this country. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gen- tleman from California [Mr. Cortiveue]. Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I sup- port the conference report, but I share the concern of my colleague the gentle- man from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT]. I believe it is a disservice to ourselves to treat the Supreme Court in this manner. We limit their salary increase to slightly more than half of our own, to express the disagreement of some Members with some of their decisions. I sincerely hope that the next Congress will right this wrong. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. JoeisoN]. Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlemen from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT and Mr. CORMAN]. When we engage in an act of vengeance because we do not agree with certain decisions of the Supreme Court we are setting a very, very dangerous precedent, because in effect we are saying to the members of the Court, "If you do not decide cases the way we believe, we will engage in re- prisals against you." I believe this is dangerous and could boomerang. I re- gret the action that was taken to accom- plish that end. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL]. Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle- woman from Missouri. Mrs. SULLIVAN. As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Panama Canal, I should like to ask the gentleman from Arizona a question. I am quite con- cerned about section 308, the limitation on salaries lxed by administrative ac- tion. Can the gentleman tell me whether the Panama Canal Company was inadvertently omitted from the ex- emption on limitation? Mr. UDALL. I believe my good friend has probably spotted the reason for the -provision to which she takes exception. I talked to the conferees. Apparently, the authority for the Panama Canal Com- pany to fix rates of compensation was not included in the exemptions listed in section 308. There is an exemption for the Central Intelligence Agency, the TVA, and certain other agencies. Since neither the bill passed by the House nor the bill passed by the Senate had any provision for the Panama Canal Company, there was nothing to compro- mise, and this oversight could not be cor- rected even though located and desig- nated. I say to my friend that there is nothing we can do at this late date. I believe the leaders on both sides of the aisle in our committee feel the Board of Directors of the Panama Canal Company should have this authority. If such legislation is sponsored, I, for one, will support it. Mrs. SULLIVAN. I hope so. There is nothing we can do in respect to this bill? Mr. UDALL. We were advised by legal counsel, by the Parliamentarian, that there was nothing to compromise. Neither the House nor the Senate had passed any provision of that kind. There was nothing on which an agreement could be worked out. The authority the gentlewoman desires should be provided. Most members of our committee, I be- lieve, are in agreement. I believe this is a subject for corrective legislation. Mrs. SULLIVAN. I thank the gentle- man for his explanation. I hope it will be done. Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. 'UDALL. I yield to the gentleman, Mr. KEOGH. I wonder if the gentle- man would explain to the House for the RECORD how the oversight took place in connection with the treatment of the Executive Director of the Advisory Com- mission on Intergovernmental Relations, which I understand is a position which has not been accorded the same treat- ment given comparable positions. Mr. 'UDALL. The conferees dealt with literally dozens of these executive posi- tions. I am told by the staff that this was a matter of judgment and was a compromise. I hope we can get a further explanation for the distinguished gen- tleman. There were a number of agency heads and appointees who were not par- ticularly happy with the way they came out under this bill. Mr. KEOGH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. 'UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17320 Approved For RetwORMINN3A:LCiterf93MBOCIM00500050001-9 - August 4 Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. NATCHER). The Chair wili count. [After counting.] One hundred-fifteen Members are present, not a quorum. Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: Alger Ashley Auc.hincloss Avery Baring Bass Battin Beckworth Bennett, Mich. Bolling Buckley Celler Curtis Davis, Tenn. Diggs Dingell Evins Finnegan Fulton, Tenn. Gill Harvey, Mich. Healey Roll No. 2021 Hebert Herlong Hoffman Hull Ichord Jones, Mo. Karsten Kee Kilburn Lankford Leggett Lennon Lesinski Lloyd McCulloch Miller, N.Y. Moore Moss Redid Norblad Passman Powell Purcell Randall Roberts, Ala Rodin? Rogers, Colo Rumsfeld Ryan. Mich St Germain Schwengel Scott Sheppard Shipley Shriver Skubitz Thompson. La Ton Vinson Wallhauser Watson Weaver Widnall Wilson, Bob The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. NATCHER ) . On this rolleall 364 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. [Mr. UDALL addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Appendix.] Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield me 1 minute? Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that Democrat leader to whom the gentleman referred is the same leader of those on the other side of the aisle who has called upon the private business fraternity to hold the line on wages and prices. Mr. UDALL. If the gentleman will yield, I hope that everyone will be in the mainstream. We can all be in the mainstream and stand together on this. Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman mean the Lyndon Johnson mainstream that calls upon private industry to hold the line on wages and prices while sup- porting a lush salary grab for Members of Congress and others? Mr- UDALL. I was suggesting the Johnson-Goldwater mainstream on Fed- eral pay. Mr. GROSS. The gentleman does not need to bring Mr. GOLDWATER into this situation. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. NATCHER . The question is on the con- ference report. Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the "ayes" appeared to have it. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. WATCHER) . The Chair will count. [Af- ter counting.] Two hundred and sev- enty-seven Members are present, a quorum. So the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid od the table. SECURITIES ACTS AMENDMENTS OF 1964 Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, by direc- tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 801, and ask for its Immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: Resolved. That upon the adoption of this resolution, It shall be in order to move that, the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6793) to amend the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. as amended, to extend disclosure re- quirements to the issuers of additional pub- licly traded securities, to provide for im- proved qualification and disciplinary pro- cedures for registered brokers and dealers, and for other purposes. After general de- bate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amend- ment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the substitute amend- ment recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now In the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such consideration the Com- mittee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any member may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee substi- tute, The previous question shall be con- sidered as ordered on the bill and amend- ments thereto to final passage without inter- vening motion except one motion to recom- mit with or without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 6793, the Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be discharged from the further con- sideration of the bill. S. 1642; and it shall then be in order in the House to move to strike out all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and Insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in HR. 6703 as passed. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen- tleman from New York [Mr. DELANEY is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BROWN]; and pending that I yield myself such [line as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 6793. This Is a bill to amend the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended. In 1961 the Congress directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to make a study of conditions on the var- ious stock exchanges. After a 2-year study they came up with certain recom- mendations which are incorporated in this proposal. The purpose is to protect the investing public. There are two main features. One is to extend to investors in certain over-the-counter securities the same pro- tection now afforded to those in listed securities by providing that the issuers of certain securities now traded over the counter shall be subject to the same re- quirements that now apply to issuers of securities listed on the main exchanges. The entire bill has for its purpose she protection of those who invest in seeu- rities. I know of no opposition to the rule. It is an open rule and provides that it shall be in order, following the passage of this bill, to consider the Sen- ate bill, S. 1642, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the provisions of the House-passed bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. (Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks., Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. DELANEY] has explained, House Resolu- tion 801 makes in order the considera- tion of HR. 6793, a bill from the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce introduced for the purpose of amending the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1924, and for other purposes. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate, following which the amendment adopted by the Committee on Intes- state and Foreign Commerce shall be considered as an original bill which %%7:11 be open for debate and amendment un- der the 5-minute rule. As the gentleman from New Yolk [Mr. DELANEY] has explained, the bill would put into effect a number of changes and a number of new recom- mendations concerning the activities and the work of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It will amend the Secur. - tics Act to provide that the issuers of certain securities now tritded over the counter shall be subject to the same re- quirements that now apply to the issuers of securities listed on any stock ex- change of record; and also to strengthen the qualifications, standards, and dis- ciplinary controls of those engaged i:s the over-the-counter market business. I think this bill is long overdue. It is designed for the purpose of protecting investors who purchase various stocks and bonds, mostly stocks over the coun- ter, in the same way that they are now protected as to other issues purchased that are listed on the regular stock ex- changes that are so well known to moss of us. Certain classes of stocks are specifi- cally exempted from these requirements. As a whole the bill would strengthen the! regulation of the over-the-counter brok- ers and dealers, including qualifications standards and disciplinary controls, bs Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 17437 ified immediately by exempting Canada to offset the Canadian crisis which cost that country $225 million in 1 day. The Japanese market, which received one of the worst setbacks in its history has not been able to recover from it. One wit- ness who is an expert on business in Japan testified that the threatened tax inhibited Japan's growth during the past year. Prosperity in other countries raises the standard of living as well as prices. Such increases result in more imports from the United States and more com- petitive prices, and thus are favorable factors in our efforts to eliminate the deficit. There is a very close correlation between private investment abroad and our exports. This measure imposes rigidities on our capital markets and capital flow that will be of lasting and perhaps irreparable harm. . Our foreign trade position can only be weakened by these rigidities. It would be much more desirable and satis- factory to have flexibility in dealing with exports of capital if it is determined that some direct control is needed. The bill would make it prohibitive to make desirable portfolio changes thus leading to deterioration in the quality of American-owned foreign securities. The very minimum that should be pro- vided is that securities presently owned by Americans could be exchanged or switched for other foreign securities without being subject to the tax. This would have no effect on the balance of payments as far as an outflow of capital is concerned and if the changes resulted in more desirable securities in American portfolios, a favorable result would ac- crue to the United States. But this pro- posal was rejected by the Treasury. This bill represents an attempt to con- trol interest rates and credit through the U.S. Treasury rather than through the Fedeal Reserve Board, which has been given the responsibility and authority of regulating interest and credit. The Treasury is far more subject to political pressure than is the more independent Federal Reserve. This bill requires security firms, the very ones that are harmed by it, to shoul- der the additional burden of auditing all sales made since July of 1963 as pro- vided for in the retroactive bill. This must be done manually at great cost. The temporary nature of the measure does not seem to justify all of the com- plications and expenses that would re- sult from its enactment, even if it were successful in stemming the outflow of capital. Foreigners have expressed concern that if the United States is resigned to measures such as this, bringing our free market to an end, It marks only the beginning of further controls in the future. I am inclined to agree that if we once give up the freedom which we now have in our financial markets, it will never be returned, but that a gradual management from Government admin- istrative agencies will continue to en- croach upon the free market. It has been argued that if we do not pass this measure, foreigners will feel that the United States is not serious about doing away with the balance-of- payments deficit. I cannot agree with such sentiment. We cannot impress them with temporary stopgap measures. If we are to preserve the confidence in the dollar which is so necessary to avoid call upon our gold, we must show our determination to correct the causes of the payment imbalance. Even the Secretary of the Treasury was forced to admit that the long-term effect of this unwise legislation will be adverse to our balance-of-payments posi- tion. That is precisely why the tax im- posed by the bill was described by ad- ministration spokesmen as "temporary." In my opinion, any possible short-term benefits will be outweighed by both the short-term and by the longrun harm that the bill will cause. For all of these reasons, I shall vote against passage of the bill, as I voted against its adoption in the Finance Com- mittee, and hope that it will be defeated by the Senate. THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTS Mr. MAGNUSON. Madam President, Telecommunications Reports, which is frequently referred to as the bible of the nonbroadcast communications field, is celebrating its 30th aniversary on Au- gust 9. This weekly news publication, edited since the beginning by Roland C. Davies, was started a few months after the for- mation of the Federal Communica- tions Commission in 1934. It now is subscribed to by virtually every organization in the United States with an interest in common carrier com- munications, as well as companies or administrations in. every major nation of the world. On July 30, the FCC wrote to Mr. Davies, congratulating him on his 30 years of service as editor and publisher, and commending him for "reliable and complete coverage of the telecommuni- cations field." I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from FCC Chairman E. William Henry printed in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the letter- was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: FEDERAL CONIMIINICATIONS COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1964. Mr. ROLAND C. DAVIES, Editor-Publisher, Telecommunications Re- ports, National Press Building, Washing- ton, D.C. DEAR M. DAVIES: Telecommunications Re- ports reaches its 30th anniversary on Au- gust 9. This is an event which should not pass without a note of recognition from the Federal Communications Commission for the important contribution made by Tele- communications Reports in the dissemina- tion of news and information relating to the communications common carrier field and other nonbroadcast communications. In your weekly reporting of significant ac- tivities, developments, and issues relating to these fields, you have demonstrated con- sistent standards of accuracy and complete- ness. You have chronicled the actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission, State regulatory commissions, other Govern- ment agencies, the Congress, and the com- munications industry. By such reliable and complete coverage of the telecommunications field, your publica- tion has provided the Commission and its staff with a constant source of current in- formation which has greatly facilitated the performance of our regulatory responsibil- ities. As editor and publisher of Telecommunica- tions Reports during its entire lifetime, you deserve to take pride in the contributions you have made to this important field, and the Commission joins with me in extending sincere congratulations. It is with regret that we have heard of your recent illness and we wish to extend our very best wishes for your speedy recovery. Yours sincerely, E. WILLIAM HENRY, Chairman. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Davies has been ill recently, and we in this field, as well as the committees of Congress in the communications field, wish him a speedy recovery. We join in the con- gratulations to him by Chairman Henry of the Federal Communications Com- mission. Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OlvriCER. The clerk will cal: the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES SALAIY REFORM ACT OF 1964?CONFER- ENCE REPORT Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other pur- poses. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the report. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re- port will be read for the information of the Senate. The legislative clerk read the report. (For conference report, see House pro- ceedings of August 3, 1964, pp. 17267- 17279, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.) The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report. Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I announce that the conference report was signed by all the conferees. I commend the conferees on the part of the Senate. This was the most friendly conference that I have ever attended. We had no trouble reaching a conclusion in con- nection with the conference report. I can safely say that the House yielded to the Senate in about 75 percent of the cases. That is true all the way through the conference report. Madam President, I am very pleased to report that the conferees readily reached agreement on a compromise bill not sub- stantially different from the Senate ver- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August .4 sion. On many points at issue, the Sen- ate positions were accepted by the con- ferees as representing either more recent recommendations from the Bureau of the Budget or a general consolidation of thinking arising out of the debate on the floor of the Senate when the bill was passed. On other points, reasonable compromises between Senate and House versions were reached without major dis- agreement. The salary amounts set for executive positions by the Senate bill were sus- tained in conference, as was the estab- lishment of five levels of executive com- pensation with positions listed for each level. The compensation schedule for em- ployees under the Classification Act as it aiipeared in the Senate version, with Increases up to 3 percent for the four middle-management grades, was agreed upon. A compromise figure in the salaries prescribed for Supreme Court Justices was reached. The Senate schedule of compensation for postmasters of fourth-class post of- fices was adopted and the conferees ap- proved the Senate provision which ex- tends to all levels of the postal field service schedule annual step increases up to step 7. With regard to the maximum salary figure for employees of the Congress, the sense of the Senate as expressed in the debate on this measure was to the effect that each body should establish its own top figure. The conferees agreed to this, so that in the compromise bill separate figures establish these congressional maximums. Salary scales for certain officers of the legislative branch differed slightly in the original Senate and House versions. A compromise approximately splitting the difference was agreed to in the confer- ence substitute bill. The Senate decision to strike the Udall amendment, which provided that con- gressional pay increases would auto- matically go into effect in percentage amounts related to pay increases for the executive branch, was sustained. The conferees accepted the amend- ment of the Senate which struck out the Udall amendment. The Senate amendment making avail- able additional funds to provide pay in- creases for the staffs of former Presi- dents was also approved in the confer- ence bill. The position level and corresponding salary for some 14 executive positions differed somewhat in the House and Sen- ate versions. The relative importance of each of these positions was carefully considered in conference and reasonable compromises were agreed to. Since the enactment of the bill in the Senate. the Post Office and Civil Service Committee has received a number of recommendations for alterations and ad- ditions in the placement of certain ex- ecutive positions in the executive salary schedule. It was my view that these changes, some of them proposed by Mem- bers of the Senate, should be considered in conference and agreed upon. Since assuring some of my colleagues that such would be the case, I had been told that if these changes were considered and agreed to in conference, they would be subject in the House of Representatives to a point of order, thus providing a means by which final approval of this Important measure would have been delayed. Aware of this fact at the final confer- ence meeting, the conferees agreed not to subject the compromise bill to such a delay. In order to permit any needed changes in the executive salary schedule, the conferees agreed to insert language authorizing the President to place an ad- ditional 30 persons, for a total of 60, in levels IV and V of the executive salary schedules. In my view and I believe in the view of all six conferees, the conference bill is a good bill which goes a long way toward meeting the urgent salary needs of the Federal Government. Madam President, I move that the Senate agree to the conference report. Madam President, the distinguished senior Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARL- sort] called me and said that he expected to be in the Chamber in a few minutes, but that if he were not present, not to hold up action on the conference report, and that he would submit a statement fully approving the report. Mr. YARBOROUGH. Madam Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Sena- tor from Texas. Mr. YARBOROUGH. I compliment the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina for his able chairman- ship of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and for the able manner in which he steered the trill through the committee and the Senate. Likewise. I compliment him for his service as chair- man of the Senate conferees in the joint conference between the Senate and the House. I also congratulate the con- ferees of both the Senate and the House upon the agreement they have reached. In its present form, the bill resolves the issues between the Senate and the House in the most appropriate way that could be done. Within a matter of hours the Federal employees pay bill of 1984 will be en- acted. I regret that it has taken so long to reach the end of the road with respect to this important measure. Our dedi- cated postal workers and Federal em- ployees had every right to expect its en- actment long ago. Nonetheless, they have been most patient and understand- ing of the problems that had to be over- come before the measure could be finally enacted into law. I appreciate their patience and understanding. First. I congratulate the conferees on the part of both the Senate and House on the agreement reached. The meas- ure in its present form resolves the is- sues involved in a most appropriate man- ner. The bill, when finally enacted, will remove many existing inequities and pro- vide a more nearly adequate basis of computation for the men and women who faithfully perform their assigned duties. There is one note of particular interest in the measure. There are some who would downgrade the power of the Press. I am not one of those who do this. Many months ago one of Washington's most. outstanding reporters dealing pri- marily with Federal employee matters pointed out how $10 million could be saved annually without imposing an in- equity on any employee. The writer to whom I refer 13 John Cramer, a likeable and very effective reporter for the Wash- ington Daily News. In a column addressed to the President of the United States, Mr. Cramer sug- gested that in eriting the pay bili, Con- gress should amend the current law so as to provide for the computation of rates of pay in full cents by rounding off the fractions to the nearest penny. This seemingly simple idea had not been pre- viously Proposed. According to the com- putations by the General Accounting Office and the Bureau of the Budget, the adoption of this proposal will result in a saving to the taxpayers of $10 million annually. I am happy to say that this proposal is embodied in the pay measure. I congratulate Mr. Cramer for bringing this proposal to the attention of Con- gress, and I commend Congress for adopting it. Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for his remarks concerning me. I thank every member of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice for their hard work during the hear- ings and for the help they have given throughout the proceedings on this bill. I have never seen a group of Democrats and Republicans work together better than we have worked on this bill. I yield the floor. Mr. ALLUIT. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado will state it. Mr. ALLOTT. Is it in order at this time to move to reject the conference re- port; and would such a motion take precedence over the motion that is be- fore the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. A majoritY vote is required to adopt the conference report. Mr. ALLoTT. Do I correctly under- stand that a motion to reject the confer- ence report is in order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote against the motion to agree to the con- ference report would serve the same pur- pose. Mr. ALLOTT. Madam President, I wish to address myself to this subject for a few minutes. I hope Senators will bear with me. I do not intend to speak at great length, but I believe a few things ought to be said about the conference report. I am sure the conference was friend- ly, because one of the most significant things that the Senate did with respect to the pay bill was not attended to as- siduously by the conferees. That was the item concerning salaries of the members of the Supreme Court. When the bill came from the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice, it provided for a salary of $43,000 for Justices of the Supreme Court and Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE a salary of $43,500 for the Chief Justice of the United States. By an amendment that was offered by the senior Senator from Colorado and agreed to by a vote' of 46 to 40, those amounts were reduced to $38,000 and $38,500, respectively. From the temper of the Senate that night and the remarks that took place at the time, I feel certain that an amendment not to increase the salaries of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices at all would have carried, and carried to the same extent. Since the time I offered that amend- ment, I have read a number of editorials and articles attributing all sorts of mo- tives and reasons for that action. I sup- pose that is what a person in public life should expect. We are all free to agree or disagree with the decisions of the Supreme Court. That has nothing to do with the situa- tion. Fifty percent of the litigants in every lawsuit are disappointed and will continue to be disappointed. I was care- ful at that time, and I am careful now, not to base anything I say on any of the decisions, wise or poor, divided or unanimous, that the Supreme Court has rendered in the past few years. I said that night, and I say now, that there is no justification for a $10,000 dif- ferential between the salaries of the members of the Supreme Court and Members of Congress. Members of the Supreme Court do not have to maintain two homes, sometimes three. They do not have to travel back to their constituencies 10, 12, or even 20 times a year. They do not have con- stituents to entertain in Washington. They are not burdened with a hundred other expenses that Members of the Sen- ate and House must bear constantly. Members of the Supreme Court do not stand for election every 2 years, as in the case of Members of the House, or every 6 years, as in the case of Members of the Senate. When one decides to stand for election to the Senate, he must burn all his bridges behind him, including his career. The voters of his State may, in their own wise discretion, terminate the relationship and chop it off in 1 short day. Then the defeated candidate must start his career all over again. Furthermore, when a Supreme Court Justice goes on the bench, he may re- main on the bench during good behavior. He may retire at full salary and receive his full salary for the remainder of his life. Members of Congress contribute 7.5 percent of their salary toward their re- tirement, which is more than many members of other branches of the Gov- ernment do. Our retirement is built up gradually over a long period of years, to make it significant. No. 150-19 A member of the Supreme Court can get this same benefit for his widow for 31/2 percent if he wishes to do so, but in order to get his own retirement, he does not have to put up 1 cent and he retires at full salary. There are other factors involved. One Senator, and he is in the Chamber at the present moment, recently wrote a book in which he called this body the sap- less branch. Madam President, I do not regard my- self as a sapless person, and I do not in- tend to associate myself with any actions which would indicate that I was. The individual members of the Su- preme Court do not bear any respon- sibility such as that which is borne by a Senator. There is no greater integrity required in the Supreme Court than is required. in the Senate?even though some Senators seem to love the picture of flagellating themselves before the public week after week and month after month. I shall not do so. I will not hold with anyone who does. There is another aspect of this issue, and that is the amount of work that is actually done. The Supreme Court has not been out of session for 2 or 3 weeks I believe it is? perhaps it is 4 weeks. They return in October. If the Senate is able to con- clude its work this summer, some time in August, each Member of the Senate knows what he will do. He will go home and he will work even harder during those 3 or 4 months?if that is possible?than he has worked so far this year. If a Senator is fortunate enough, he may be able to squeeze a couple of weeks' vaca- tion out of it. That is about all he will get. So, based on the amount of work re- quired, based upon the degree of integ- rity required, and based upon the ability required, there is no basis for any differ- entiation in salary between the Supreme Court and Members of Congress. Let us make that plain. I do not believe that it requires a greater degree of ability to sit on the bench, a greater degree of integrity, on a greater amount of work, than it takes to be a Member of the Senate?if a Member of the Senate is doing his work. I am very much disappointed that the chairman of the committee did not sit down hard and say, "We will not recede on this point," because we had a vote in the Senate. I believe that the chairman realized, as everyone else does, that if those figures had been set lower, out of an attitude of spite, they would have stuck in the Senate that evening. Madam President, I am sure no point will be particularly served in my trying to do anything against the conference report other than what I have done; but 17439 I invite the attention of the Senate once more to the factors which precipitated the offering of my original amendment. I believe that the importance and wis- dom of these factors are present in the Chamber today, Just as much as they were the night the Senate voted on my amendment. I hope that the Senate is through with its self-flagellation. I hope, for once, that it will again stand up?as it did by its vote that night?and say to the whole world, "We believe the Senate to be a coequal body, not only with the execu- tive branch, but also with the Supreme Court, which sits across the street from us." It is no valid argument to say, "They have always received more money than we have." It is never too late to correct inequi- ties or injustices. It would be my hope that when Sena- tors come up to this issue again, they will somehow be able?either in this way or in another way?to show the other coequal branches of the Government that the Senate is in fact an equal branch of the Government, that we regard our- selves as equal, that we believe in our own integrity, that we believe in our own abilities, and that we yield nothing in these respects to the other branches of the Government. ? So, Madam President, on this partic- ular matter, I shall vote against the conference report, regardless of what other Senators may do, because it is the only way I can express my feelings about the concession which has been made on this pay raise bill. Mr. MONRONEY. Madam President, I deeply regret that the efforts made by the committee to bring this bill to the floor of the Senate today are not satis- factory to my very dear friend, the Sena- tor from Colorado, whom I regard with great affection. In my opinion, the committee did the best it could in a matter on which it knew there was strong feeling on the part of the Senate. The chairman of the Senate commit- tee voted enthusiastically, I might say, for the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLorx]. We endeavored to maintain the Senator's position. The Senator is well aware, however, that these things are always a matter of give and take. It is necessary to compromise. If the Senator would look at the fig- ures, they are not quite as he quoted them. The bill came to the Senate reported by the Senate committee at $43,000, not $43,500 as the Senator from Colorado has stated. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August Mr. ALLOTT. Madam President, vvill the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a question? Mr. 3,10NRONEY. I yield. Mr. ALLOTT. Is not the figure $43,500 for the Chief Justice? Mr. MONRONEY. Forty-three thou- sand dollars. Mr. ALLOTT. For the Chief Justice. Mr. MONRONEY. Forty-two thou- sand five hundred dollars for the Asso- ciate Justices of the Supreme Court ac- cording to the figures we have from the committee. This was compromised by a reduction, let me say to the Senator from Colorado, of $3,000 below the House fig- ure. It came up to a figure of $40,000. The existing salary is $35,500. This was a reduction of $3,000 from the House figure and reduced the increase to a far smaller amount than that given to al- most any part of the legislative or ex- ecutive branches of Government. Pour thousand five hundred dollars for the justices of the Supreme Court, and a similar figure of $4,500 for the Chief Justice. If the figure had been cut much lower, we would run into a compression within the salary scale where we would be pay- ing judges of the circuit courts, judges of the Court of Claims, judges of the court of appeals, and judges of the Court of Military Appeals, $33,000. This would have approached too narrow a range for judges sitting on the highest court in the land. Certainly, I am sure the Senator from Colorado knows that the Supreme Court's degree of popularity is never the same; that it always goes up and down. We are not legislating in this pay raise bill because we approve of the decisions of the Supreme Court currently un- der discussion. Let me say that I do not agree with many things the Supreme Court does, and I am sure the Senator from Colorado feels the same way. But we are dealing with the highest court in the land. We are dealing with the highest Court in the greatest Nation in the world, on the judgment of nine men upon whom depends the final in- terpretation of our Constitution. I disagreed with President Roosevelt in his Court-packing plan. I would disagree with a plan which arbitrarily reduced the salaries of the Supreme Court?and I know of course that this is not the intention of the Senator from Colorado? because their decisions were not neces- sarily satisfactory to me, or to him. I would not do that. Neither would the Senator from Colorado. Certainly, many people across the Na- tion have the feeling that this is the reason their salaries were cut, because the raise in salary to Supreme Court Justices was so much less than that given to all other members of the executive branch, and to all other Members of Congress. Even now, let me say that while Sen- ators and Members of the House of Rep- resentatives are going to enjoy a $7,500 increase, the members of the Court will be enjoying only a $4,500 increase. So that the ratio between the two salaries, which has been historically different, is narrowing. Certainly I feel that we did the best we could. The matter is always open to compromise. It has been for a long pe- riod of time. I feel that the pay bill should pass. I feel that it represents the very best possible effort, to reach a solu- tion in which the House could concur and which the Members of the Senate, after not being able to prevail with the rate fixed by the Senate, felt would be acceptable to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. Mr. LAUSCHR. Madam President. at the very beginning I subscribe to the words spoken by the Senator from Colo- rado [Mr. Airorrl. In my public service, I have been a judge, a mayor, a Governor, and Sen- ator. The simplest job that I had was that of a judge. I did not have to worry about bringing witnesses to court I did not have to worry about searching the law. I knew that the lawyers would bring the evidence. I knew that they would bring the witnesses. I knew that they would supply me with briefs on the questions of law that were involved in the ease before me. All that I had to possess was the pretense of Intelligence. In my assignments as mayor. Governor, and Senator, I have been burdened with labor and worry far in excess of any- thing that I ever experienced as a judge. In the capacity which I now occupy, I have to make decisions that deal with the economy of every family in the Na- tion. I have to make decisions that deal with the security of the country. am now subject to libel and slander. When I was a judge, all that I said came from the cathedral on high. No one challenged me. As a judge in my State, I had to contribute a part of my salary to a retirement fund. As a Senator. I have to contribute 7.5 percent of my salary to a retirement fund. The Fed- eral judges do not have to contribute a single cent to the retirement fund. They can go on the inactive list, I believe, at the end of 10 years of service at the age of 60, and 15 years of service at the age of 55. They contribute not a single penny to the fund. For the rest of their lives, if they go on the inactive service list under the present law, the district court Judges receive $22,500 a year. The circuit court judges, I believe, receive $30,000 a year. I do not know what the Supreme Court judges receive, but it is in excess of what is received by a district or circuit court judge. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Attorrl has stated that the position of the Senate with respect to heaviness of responsibility is equal to that of the courts. I say that it exceeds it by far. Those judges do not have to run. They do not have to spend money to keep their positions in an election. They have a lifetime position. Based upon my experience as a judge, with full recognition of the dignity of the position. I say that we have debased the significance of the position of a legislator and the significance of the position of an executive officer in favor of men who in the main have nothing but a facade. There are other Members of this body who became Fudges. I make the confes- sion that I never realized how my intelli- gence grew from the day that I was a lawyer to the next day when I was a judge. The moment I was called judge, I became a man who was infallible. Bat I was the same FRANK LAIISCHE, besA with the same weaknesses. So much for the judges and no more. I believe that one of the travesties and one of of the reasons for Congress to- day wanting to pass a special interest equalization law to fortify the weak- nesses of our gold reserves and our bal- ance of payments is the inordinate ex- penditure of public moneys. I am now asked to vote for the bill. I opposed it when it came before the Sen- ate several weeks ago. I did not feel that the Senators should be entitled o an increase of $10,000 from 1955, or increase in salary of from $12,500 o $22,500 a year. Now another increase is proposed, an increase of $7,500, a raise In salary from $22,500 to $30,000 a year. When I voted against this increase of pay for myself, I made the statemert, "How will I ever be able to deny any in- ordinate petitions for grants of taxpay- ers' money?" When I made that state- ment, I believed it. I wanted to keep myself in the position where I could say to petitioners, "I will not give to you that which I would not give to myself." I hold in my hand a letter which came from Zanesville, Ohio. I shall not iden- tify the writer of the letter, because I do not have his consent to do so. He has written urging that I support a measure which would give to eve::y World War I veteran a pension of $100 a month. If I should follow his advice, as a World War I veteran I would be given $100 a month. I am not entitled to it. I do not need it. But the b.11 which is pending before the Congress provides that every veteran of that war shall receive $100 a month. The citizen in Zanesville, Ohio, to whom I referred, has written: We ask you, Mr. Senator, do you really think this ill fair and Just for the forgotten soldier of 1917', I was one of them. Yes, the man enlisted in 1917 and re- ceived the $1 per day to fight and, if necessary, to die for the cause that he thought right. I cannot help chuckling, Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 17441 because I remember with what avidity I went to the cashier's window to get my 30 brandnew dollars. The writer said: I ask you, Mr. Senator, can you face the forgotten soldier, who is asking for a pen- sion of $100 per month for the twilight years of his life, which are not too many, as many are 68 to 75 years old, while you are asking for an increase of $7,500 a year to make $30,000 a year for you to stay in Washington, D.C.? That citizen from Zanesville did not know that I had voted against the meas- ure. But his argument is sound. The justice of his claim cannot be denied when he writes, in effect, "If you give yourself a 140-percent increase between 1955 and 1964, how can you deny me as a veteran a pension of $100 a month?" I can answer the letter. I shall do so gently. The writer obviously does not know that I voted against the bill. He obviously does not know that I said I would not take this increase in salary because I did not believe I was entitled to it. That was my position on the night that the bill was passed, and that is my position today. I wish to deal with another phase of the question. The administration is asking us today to pass an interest equal- ization tax bill so that the American dol- lar will not flow out of the United States into foreign countries. In effect, the bill states, "We are in distress. Our gold reserves are practically gone. If our short-term foreign creditors make de- mand for payment of our debts in gold, we cannot meet the obligation." I can understand why that plea is being made. What is sought to be done is probably better than nothing. I would not be telling the truth unless I said that the remedy which is before us is the weak and the easy way out. No political dan- ger of any kind whatsoever is involved. There are means of putting ourselves into a position in which the gold reserve problem would be remedied. It might require a bit of courage. We might be required to ask the public to indulge in a bit of economic austerity. But those re- quests of self-denial would be far less in weight and sacrifice than what might come within the next half decade unless we do something about it. What can we do about it? We could balance the budget, but hardly anyone fights to balance the budget. We are building into our governmental expenditures operations that will be with us until the sun dies. We are doing everything we can to give opiates to the economy. We are "beefing it up" through the following program: First. We are reducing taxes because It will stimulate the national product. Second. We have granted credits for capital investments because that will induce capital to invest. Third. We have liberalized the depre- ciation laws, which will stimulate the economy. Fourth. We have started to develop a public works program Of the character of 1933, in the form of supplemental public works. Fifth. We have been asked to adopt a program for the relief of people in the hills of Appalachia. That request has already brought about a request from Arkansas that we provide a similarly basic principle of aid for Arkansas and one for Minnesota. We have been asked to adopt a program to fight "poverty." That is a most appealing term, and one that is hard to argue against. We have been asked to maintain low interest rates, subsidize local govern- mental mass transportation systems, ex- pand area redevelopment and the com- munity facilities program. The measure before the Senate deals with the budget. It deals with placing ourselves in a competitive position with the manufacturers and the vendors of the world who are competing with us. The President recommended that sal- ary increases be limited to the increased productivity of labor. He asked labor leaders not to demand increased wages that would be in excess of the produc- tivity of the workers. That formula provided that the wage increase ought not to be in excess of increased produc- tivity, and in no event, in excess of 3.2 percent of the worker's salary. Those were beautiful words. The Na- tion applauded them. But what has been the execution of those words? We have granted salaries far in excess of what the President's recommendation was. Labor leaders everywhere are demanding wages in excess of what productivity justifies. While all this is happening, our position in world markets and the world economy is growing worse. It will continue to grow worse because we are weakening Our position to sell competi- tively goods in the world markets. I cannot approve of this measure be- cause it is wrong. When the bill was originally passed, I, on this Senate floor, publicly announced that I would not accept the increase. I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue asking him whether I will have to pay a tax on the $30,000 salary even though I will want only $22,500. I am awaiting his reply. In conclusion, President Kennedy, the man who gave his life for our country said, "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but, rather, ask what you can do for your country." The Congress of the United States, which is made up of 435 Members, says to the country, "Give each Member as much as he can get. Let him have what the traffic will bear." How can a Member of Congress say to the soldier from Zanesville, "I will not vote for an increase for you, even though I believe you are entitled to it," when he is, extravagantly, sumptuously, and in- considerately draining the Treasury and asking for himself everything that the country can give and thinking nothing of what he can give to his country? Mr. MILLER. Madam President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield. Mr. MILLER. The distinguished Sen- ator is speaking his conscience, reflect- ing perhaps an attitude with respect to the Senate as a whole. In my nearly 4 years as a Member of the Senate it has been my personal observation that the extravagant and deficit spending to which this body has contributed has not been due to the votes of the Senator from Ohio. If anyone were entitled to a salary increase because of his vigilance in trying to keep trust with the people and the people's hard-earned money, I am sure the Senator from Ohio would be included in that group of Senators, which, unfortunately, is in the minority. Mr. LAUSCHE. I appreciate very much what the Senator from Iowa has said. In my experience as mayor and Gov- ernor, I learned that those who are in the administration of government will guide themselves by the conduct of the mayor or the conduct of the Governor. If the Governor is crooked, if the mayor is crooked, all under them will become crooked. That crookedness cannot be stopped from percolating down into the lowest ranks. With respect to the U.S. Congress, if it is extravangant, if it has no regard for balanced budgets and policies of fis- cal and monetary soundness, the philoso- phy trickles down through the entire cit- izenship, leading to destruction. Mr. MILLER. The same thing may be said also with respect to the Chief Executive of the country. Mr. CARLSON. Madam President, there are many problems in trying to write a pay bill that affects the three branches of the Federal Government and all those associated with it. As a member of the committee of conference that signed the conference report, I feel that we have brought to the Senate a very ex- cellent report, considering the great magnitude of these problems. I give one warning, and that is that when we pass the bill the cost of running the Post Office Department will be in- creased by several hundred million dol- lars. A deficit will probably begin to as- sume larger proportions. I think it will be incumbent on this Congress, as we begin to approach 1970, with 90 billion pieces of mail, and 1980, with probably 125 billion pieces of mail, to begin a study of modernization of the great post- al system of ours, or it will be incum- bent upon Congress to handle problems that will cause real difficulties. The present bill adds approximately $229 million to the postal deficit. The Postmaster General presently estimates the deficit to be $77 million. Thus the total deficit will exceed $300 million. When the deficit rises to this degree, con- siderations obviously turn to rate in- creases to make up the difference. When the pay-rate bill was passed in 1962, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service of the Senate made this statement in the report which accom- panied the bill, H.R. 7927: The committee unanimously agrees that, , before another adjustment in postal rates takes place, the Congress should develop, through its appropriate committees, more exact data on mail classification, postal costs, and processes having to do with greater use of machines and mail handling. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE The need for a refined cost ascertain- ment system is well recognized. Even the Post Office Department admits that its present cost ascertainment system has many deficiencies. Such a study of cost ascertainment should take place at the earliest possible time in the 89th Congress. On the subject of mechanization and modernization, a comparable study should take place. In response to a ques- tion regarding the major mechanization program, information was recently fur- nished by the Post Office Depart'Went to the Senate Subcommittee on Treasury- Post Office Appropriations which indi- cated that over an 8-year period. from 1957 to 1964, $125.098,000 had been ap- propriated for major mechanization but only $87,669.000 had been spent for that program. The difference of $371/2 million was spent by the Post Office Department for purposes other than that for which it was appropriated by the Congress. Thus, apparently, this is a program which does not lack funds so much as it lacks direction and planning. The type of study envisioned in the report of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in 1962 is essential to provide that degree of direction and planning necessary to place the Post Of- flee Department in a position to effi- ciently handle a mail volume grown to staggering proportions. I ask unanimous consent to have in- cluded in the RECORD as a part of my re- marks an excerpt from the cost ascer- tainment report, 1963. an excerpt from a survey of postal rates, 1964, and cer- tain information from the Treasury and Post Office appropriation hill for 1965. There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: EXCERPT PROM COST ASCERTAINMENT REPORT 1983 The system, a statistiml-accounting process, does not take into account factors, other than cost, which are generally to be considered in adjustment of postal rates and fees under the policies established by law In title 39, United States Code, section 2301-08, as amended. For example, the system does not attempt to evaluate such service differ- ences as (1) the value of priority or defer- ment given to any one class of mall or serv- ice, (2) relative values of the various services to the public, and (3) the relative Intrinsic values of the items handled. Such factors are not properly within the scope of a cost accounting system. EXCERPT FROM SURVEY OF POSTAL RATES 1964 The Department's time-tested cost ascer- tainment system apportions to each class of mail a fair share of operating costs based on sample observations of actual use of man- power, transportation space, facilities, and equipment In addition, each mail service is assigned a pro rata share of overhead costs, roughly In proportion to the more direct costs that the services engender. Thus, these cost allocations reflect measurements based on physical characteristics such as weight, size, length of haul, or number of aortings. But the system does not purport to measure the intangibles which make first Cl888, for example, a far more valuable service than third class. Major mechanization Fin thousands) Fbcal year 1964 I Program 1 $12, ca8 Obligations $11,134 lora 14. 500 2?4 196') 4 10.000 5,354 1951_ 35,147 10,567 191si 25.535 32, 583 1950_ _ 20,415 15,795 ItaSS_ 12.550 7.803 1957, 1,253 1,404 Total 1 125,065 87.541 l'rograin is the amount alloewled to he activity at the time the appr.priation act is tv.swol. It may be a different amount, from that originally re [nested in the estimate to the (4,016f6.4.1, to.C4114P the appropriation is loas than the amount requested or because of changed deuaayls of the various programs. It Is the amount I,to.en hi tin, middle eedutrin of tables In the following year'i budget .6.11,1111144941. Im 41 ed. The ,?riginal request to f`,..ncr,-.1 was $27,ene, which reprogramed as follows: Original request beductkm in total appropria- ti In by Congress from total roiliest _ '1 rangers to other appropria- t ma to cover pay increases . other approikriation transfers. Thousands $27 . 000 $7. MO 17. 373 3, 127 22.500 Devise,' 91466-491. - 4.500 The original request to Cong ss was $34,753, which was reprogranted as follows. Thousands 'trial request ., 534.753 Less: Reduction In total appropria- timi by Congress from kdal request. . . $12.000 'I 'antlers to other appropria- tions 5. OCO Reprogramed to? Federal buildings trn- I,roveinant 7,121 ehleles and other equip- ment 632 24,763 Ile V I19,1 program 10, as) The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. Mr. LAUSCHE. Madam President, I will not ask for a yea-and-nay vote. I have made my position clear on this mat- ter. The Senate spoke on it several weeks ago. I know my words will not change what has been done. Mr. 'THURMOND. Madam President. I want the RECORD to show that I am against the adoption of the conference report, on the pay-increase bill. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I shall vote "No" on the question of agreeing to the conference report on the pay-raise bill. I voted "Nay" on the rollcall vote on the bill when it was passed by the Sen- ate; and my reasoning remains the same: It is that I cannot justify voting for this bill?which eventually will cost nearly $1 billion a year?at a time when over 4 million people have no jobs at all, and their families have no regular Income, and when our budget has been unbal- anced for 4 straight years, and will show a large deficit this year and next. I sup- August 4 port the position so ably stated by the senior Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCH E I . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report, The report was agreed to. Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference I eport was agreed to. Mr. McNAMARA, Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. PROJECTS APPROVED BY COMMIT- TEE ON PUBLIC WORKS Mr. MeNAMARA. Madam President, in order that the Members of the Senate and the House, particularly the Appr )- priations Committees, and other inter- ested parties. may be advised of projects approved by the Committee on Public Works, under the provisions of the Pub- lic Buildings Act of 1959, and the Water- shed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, information on this subject. The first is a revised prospectus for the proposed construction of 87 small public building projects; 74 prospectuses for new buildinga and acquisition of land, and 8 for extension and/or Colt- version of existing buildings; and 41 pro- spectuses for the repair, improvement, and alterations in existing buildings, ap- proved April 4, 1963. Approval of these buildings is based on prospectuses submitted to the commi tee by the Administrator of General Services, in compliance with the prc-- visions of Public Law 249, 86th Congress. The committee also held a public hear- ing at which representatives of GSA ap- peared, and discussed the public building program. Its operation, and the need for the recommended new buildings and a.- terations to existing buildings. In addition. the committee approved 1 project for proposed new construction on May 13, 1963; 2 projects on June 13, 1963; and 2 alteration projects on Au- gust 20, 1963. The second is a list of 35 prospectuas for new buildings; 1 previously approved on April 3, 1963, revised prospectus for change in location; and 28 alteratio projects, approved April 30, 1963. The third list is 3 revised prospectuses for proposed construction; 1 alteratio project; and 25 prospectuses for con- struction of small public buildings for use primarily by the Social Security Ad- ministration, Department of Health, Ed- ucation, and Welfare, throughout th United States, approved July 1, 1964. The small watershed protection proj- ects were approved under the provisions of Public Law 566, 83d Congress, as amended. There being no objection, the tabula ? tions were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX lands, managed for multiple use. Our econ- omy and our population will continue to grow and our standard of living will con- tinue to climb. All of our resources, there- fore, are going to feel the pressure of increas- ing public demand, our forest resources included. Your forest lands can play a multiple role in this future growth. We see here to- day one evidence of that role. The timber harvests from the forests of northern Maine will be the raw material for tills mill?as they are for your existing mills and will be for the new mills now building elsewhere in the State. This harvest provides jobs, pay- rolls, taxes, a vast bounty to your people. Almost 350 individual manufacturing enter- prises in your State are forest based. But these well-managed Industrial forests serve other public purposes as well. They are vast watersheds, collecting and storing rain and melting snow, protecting the soil from erosion and holding untold quantities of water for release in the springs that feed your rivers and lakes or in underground streams that can be tapped by man. Water is a precious resource. Another role of the managed forest is in providing shelter and food for wildlife. I hope the day never comes when we are too concerned with the material things of life to lose our wonder and concern for the mar- velous variety of animals, birds, and water life that populate our forested areas. Mune of these species find their most compatible habitat in forests managed for successive harvests of timber, where food and shelter are plentiful?forests protected from the great destroyer, fire. Finally, and of increasing importance these days, are the recreational opportunities of- fered by the forests, the wooded mountains. the lakes and rivers of your State. Again, these opportunities are many and varied. Hunting and fishing are a big business for you. Hundreds of boys and girls are at this moment enjoying the matchless experience of camping in your woodlands and on the shores of your lakes. All of our company lands in your State are open to the public except, of course, when fire conditions or logging operations would present undue hazards. In recent years, there has been pressure for the withdrawal from private ownership of very substantial areas in northern Maine along the Allagash Waterway. These lands would be federalized as some kind of national riverway. This proposal as stated would not only remove these acres from economic use but would effectively block off access to more than a million additional acres of productive forest land. International Paper Co. has opposed this suggestion. A federalized Allagash would limit the growth of your forest-based indus- tries. In this State, where the forest econ- omy forms such an important segment, it would have a drastic effect on your future economic growth. We feel that the people of Maine have ap- proached this matter in a logical, reasonable fashion. The appointment of an Allagash River Authority by the 1963 State legisla- ture, to study and report on what should be done with the scenic Allagash area. Is a sound approach to this question. Late in June the authority issued a preliminary re- port. They agree that the preservation of the unique character of the area is of primary importance. The industrial and private owners in the area clearly adhere to this view. After more than 100 years of con- tinuous timber production, the Allagash Waterway still provides one of the Nation's unique, unspoiled wilderness areas. This attests to the public-spirited policies under which these lands have been managed. It is in our interest and yours that this waterway he maintained in the present wild. free-flowing state. The authority is preparing its specific rec- ommendations for your next legislature. Protective stripe will likely be established along the waterway, either by purchase, gift, easement or zoning. Governor Reed, on this occasion I want to assure you again that International Paper is prepared to cooperate fully with the Aliagash River Authority in their objective of preserv- ing this unique scenic and recreational area. We want people of your State and others to continue to enjoy the hunting and fishing to be found there. We want youngsters to en- joy the white-water canoeing in Chase Rapids, as they do every summer. Whatever method your authority recommends to im- plement it plans, we will continue, as we have for years. to leave protective borders of timber along the waterway. Our logging roads will be open for public travel. Through our policies of multiple use we will continue the partnership between outdoors- men and timhermen that has characterized this State for years. You have our pledge of cooperation, Gov- ernor Reed. We mean it. Now, let me say again how very much we appreciate being able to greet so many of our friends and neighbors on this occasion. This is an auspicious start for the Androscog- gin mill. We are particularly pleased to be able to welcome Governor and Mrs. Reed, the mem- bers of Governor Reed's staff and so many of your leading State and local elected and appointed officials. You are going to be proud of what we are building here-and we are too. And now it is my privilege to introduce our honored speaker today. Governor Reed is a man who has made his mark in your State ever since his graduation from the University of Maine in 1942. After return- ing from distinguished service with the U.S. Naval Reserve during the war, he joined Walter M. Reed & Sons of Fort Fairfield, one of the State's leading growers and ship- pers of potatoes. As the years went on he became increasingly active in public affairs, first in the legislature in 1855. then in the State senate from 1957 to 1959, with a term as president of the senate. In 1959 he suc- ceeded to the high office of Governor?an office to which he was reelected in 1960 and again In 1962. His influence has been felt not only within Maine but throughout New England and increasingly at the national level, particularly in- his work with the na- tional Governors' conference. Ladies and gentlemen, It is an honor to present to you the Honorable John H. Reed, Governor of Maine. STATEMENT MADE By INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. JAY, Matrix, August 3, 1964.?International Paper Co. today pledged full cooperation to the Allagash River Authority in Be objec- tive of preserving the Allagash area of north- er', Maine. The pledge was made by Lamar M. Fear- ing, president of International Paper to Gov. John H. Reed. as part of formal dedication ceremonies at tile site of the company's new $54 million Androscoggin pulp and paper mill in Jay, Maine. More than 3.500 attended the ceremonies Including Representative Ctarroae MCINTIRE and Representative STANLEY 'TUPPER. In addi- tion to formal remarks by both Mr. Fearing and Governor Reed, the program included guided tours of the construction area and numerous exhibits about the Industry. Governor Reed bailed the new project, crediting it with starting, "an economic chain reaction, the importance of which will be felt in Maine for generations to come." A4121 "This is truly a great day," the Governor said, "a day of tremendous importance to International Paper and its directors and also it is a great day in the economic life of a State which has, for many generations, properly regarded the pulp and paper indus- try as its most important single industrial enterprise." In his remarks, Mr. Fearing noted that the new mill will be the most modern, forward- looking mill in the country when it starts in late 1965. He credited its location in Maine to the wonderful cooperation extended to the company. "There was no question in our minds," Mr. Fearing said, "that the State of Maine offered a business climate that welcomes new ven- tures?new industrial undertakings. Our decision to come here was heavily influenced by this and tile mutual respect which we have enjoyed for so long." Mr. Fearing said that the new two-paper- machine mill will be built around a gigantic continuous digester?the newest develop- ment in the pulp and paper industry. Towering over 210 feet in the air, the digester will be able to manufacture 500 tons of high quality kraft pulp every day. "We expect the quality of this pulp to be so outstanding," Mr. Fearing said, "that we plan to shut down tile present sulphite pulp operations at our nearby Otis Mill and at our Hudson River Mill in Corinth, N.Y. The entire chemical pulp requirements for both mills, as well as for the two Androscoggin paper machines will be supplied from this one continuous digester." The Androscoggin Mill will manufacture lightweight bleached paper, primarily light- weight bond, carbonizing, gift wrap, and other similar grades. Referring to the discussions about the future status of the Allagash, Mr. Fearing said that International Paper opposes pres- sure for the withdrawal from private owner- ship of very substantial areas in northern Maine along the Allagash waterway. "A federalized Allagash would limit the growth of your forest-based industries," he said. "We feel that the people of Maine have approached this matter in a logical, reason- able fashion. The appointment of an Al- lagash River Authority by the 1963 legis- lature, to study and report on what should be done with the scenic Allagash area, is a sound approach to this question." Addressing himself directly to Governor Reed. Mr. Fearing then said, "I want to assure you again that International Paper Is prepared to cooperate fully with the Alia- gash River Authority in their objective of preserving this unique and scenic recrea- tional area. "Whatever method your authority recom- mends to implement its plans." he said, "we will continue as we have for years to leave protective borders of timber along the water- way. Our logging roads will be open for public travel. Through our policies of mul- tiple use, we will continue the partnership between outdoorsmen and timbermen that has characterized this State for many years." Concluding the formal program, Governor Reed and Mr. Fearing unveiled a large bronze plaque which will later be permanently set at the entrance to the mill. Attending the ceremonies were many em- ployees and interested people from neigh- boring towns as well as a large number of State officials, State legislators, town officials, and members of the clergy and professional world. International Paper officials in addition to Mr. Fearing included: George H. Rand, John L. Tower and Ralph W. Kittle, vice presi- dents; R. C. Masterman, general manager of the company's northern manufacturing division, and Lawrence J. Kugelman, director of woodlands. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 A4122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX August 5 Photo of Maine Band Recalls Fourths of the Nineties EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE OF MAINE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, August 5, 1964 Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Speaker, there appeared in the Washington Star of July 3, a very interesting article about a dis- tinguished former resident of Maine, Mr. Harold Seiders, 90 years old, who is now living here in Washington. I know others would like to read this refreshing story of this educator and mu- sician. The article follows: [From the Washington (D.C.) Star, July 3, 1964] No PARADE Now: PHOTO OF MAINE BAND RE- CALLS FOURTHS OF NINETIES (By John Sherwood) The photograph by the window is of a serious group of whiskered young men in gold-braided uniforms posing in front of a Victorian bandstand newly built by one Ulys- ses Wincapaw. The time is just before an annual Inde- pendence Day celebration in the little town of Union, Maine. The Union Cornet Band paraded all that day, gave an afternoon con- cert of Sousa marches, and, after the fire- works display that evening on the village common, officially ended things with a quiet "Good Night, Ladies." That big day in the life of a little town in the 1890's had' almost been forgotten by one of the uniformed men who played tenor horn in the band. But the other day the mail brought that photograph from the only other survivor of the band and everything came back again except the music, just in time for the Fourth. Harold Seiders, 90, will observe the Fourth of July sitting in a chair and looking out the third-floor front window of Mrs. Nelson's Nursing Home at 2021 Kalorama Road NW. There will be no parades within his sight, but the photograph is handy and there are copies of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald and Rockland (Maine) Courier Gazette within reach. The Union Cornet Band was but a brief interlude in the old man's long life, but It reminds him of swimming and fishing in Seven Tree Pond, and all the other fresh- water ponds of his youth-Crawford's Pond, White Oak Pond, Sennebec Pond, and "big Lake Sebago where the water is so clear you can almost drink it." Mr. Seiders' father had a vegetable farm overlooking Seven Tree Pond, and the view from the bedroom window of the young cor- net player was all green and blue at this time of the year. There was an electric ex- citement in the air when the Fourth ap- proached, and there were many plans to be made and never enough time in which to make them. ERA HAS PASSED Now that the era has passed, a simple thing such as an old photograph is worth a great deal to a man in a day when his time is without value. From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day of the week for the last 4 years, Mr. Seiders has known the outside world only through his third-floor window and his Maine newspapers. What he sees from 2021 Kalorama road is "traffic on Connecticut Avenue. Police cars, fire engines, ambulances, and cars and more ears-one after another, always coming and going some place." And no Seven Tree Pond in sight. Now pensioned after working with the Portland (Maine) school system for 30 years, Mr. Seiders came to Washington in 1951 to be near his children after his wife died. A large clock knocks off the seconds with a loud, tiny sound in the bedroom he shares with another elderly man. His left elbow on the windowsill and his right foot propped on a pillow, the old bandsman smokes his pipe and rereads the letters from his few remaining friends in Maine. MISSES SPRING WATER He misses the fishing, he'll tell you, and playing with the Union Cornet Band on In- dependence Day was always the biggest event of the year. But more than anything, he misses "the drinking water up home. I used to fill up on that spring water first thing. It did taste good. Boy, I would love a little taste of that now." The routes that Saturday's bands will take are fixed by now. But a look into a third- floor window where a kindly old man waits for a parade that will never come again makes one wonder why celebrations couldn't be just a little more flexible. Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964 SPEECH OF HON. MORRIS K. UDALL OF ARIZONA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, August 4, 1964 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL]. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I might state to our colleagues who have just come into the Chamber that we are in the process of considering a conference report on something that might be of Interest to them. It is called the Gov- ernment Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964. If you will bear with me for just a very few minutes, I think we may be able to write the final chapter on this important legislation. ? I have studied the conference report. I feel a little bit like the man who told about his mother-in-law driving -his brandnew uninsured Cadillac off a cliff. They asked him how he felt, and he said he had mixed emotions. I have mixed emotions about the con- ference report, but I am interested in legislation, not conversation. I urge the House to support the conference report and to see that this bill is enacted into law this week. ? There are some changes in the bill that I think are especially good. The important and able members of our con- gressional and committee staffs are prop- erly taken care of in this bill. I have been asked by many Members, "What is this going to do to the pay of my staff?" I suppose before the day is over many of you will be asked about that. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- sent to place in the RECORD at this point a table in which you can find the present pay of your staff people and go across the columns and find the pay they will receive after this bill is enacted. The SPEAKER pro tempore. out objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. The table referred to is as follows: LEGISLATIVE SALARY INCREASES This is designed to provide percentage sal- ary adjustments for legislative employees comparable to those provided for employees under the Classification Act. The increases are provided in an amount equal to 31/2 per- cent of the employee's gross rate plus 1 per- cent of his gross rate for each whole mul- tiple, or part of a multiple of $500 basic compensation; or an amount equal to 5 per- cent of such gross rate, whici.ever is greater. With- Multiple Base .. Present gross Conference substitute Percent increase New gross 0 $5 $891 6.0 $935 0.1 60 1,020 5.0 1,071 500 2,057 5.0 2, 160 1 505 2,069 5.5 2,183 2 1,000 3,157 5.5 3,330 2 1,009 3, 166 6.5 3,372 2.4 1,200 3, 534 6.5 3,764 3 1, 500 4,652 6.5 4,318 3 1, 605 4,091 7.5 4,366 3. 6 1, 800 4, 655 7. 5 5,004 4 2,000 5,088 7. 5 5, 470 4 2,005 5,009 8. 5 5, 533 4. 8 2,400 6, 955 8. 5 6, 461 5 2, 500 6, 172 8. 5 6, 697 5 2,505 6, 183 9. 5 6, 770 t 3,000 3,060 7, 255 7, 266 9. 6 10. 5 7, 945 8, 029 7 3, 500 8,330 10. 5 9, 215 7 3, 505 8,350 11. 5 9,310 7. 2 3,600 8, 556 11. 5 9, 540 8 4,000 9,422 11. 5 10, 506 8 4,605 9,433 12. 5 30,613 9 4, 500 10, 506 12. 5 11,819 9 4, 505 10,517 13.5 11,037 0.6 4,800 11, 136 13. 5 12,640 10 6, 000 11, 550 13.5 13, 109 10 5,005 11, 500 14.5 13,237 11 5,100 12, 528 14. 5 14,345 11 5,105 12,538 15.5 14,481 12 0, 000 13, 409 15. 5 15, 556 12 6,005 13,478 16. 5 15, 702 13 6, 500 14, 409 16. 6 16, 780 13 8, 505 14, 418 17. 5 16,042 14 7,000 15, 349 17. 5 18, 035 14 7,005 15, 359 18. 5 18, 200 14.4 7,200 15, 725 18. 5 18,631 15 7, 500 16, 289 18. 5 19, 303 15 7,505 16, 299 19. 6 19, 477 10 8,000 17, 230 19. 6 20, 590 16 8,005 17, 239 20. 5 20, 773 17 8,500 18, 170 20. 5 21, 895 17 8,505 18, 179 21. 5 22, 088 17.7 8,880 18,884 21. 5 22, 945 18 9, 000 19, 110 21. 5 23, 219 18 9, 005 19, 120 22. 5 23, 422 18.9 9, 475 20,000 22. 5 24, 500 Another improvement in the bill is the increased raises for middle grades of GS-9, GS-10, and GS-11, the people who were almost overlooked in the House bill. I have heard since yesterday a number of rumors about this bill. I have heard some objections to the conference report. The rumors I have heard are unfounded. I think we ought to straighten these things out so the people understand what the bill does and does not do. I have been told all Federal judges will receive larger raises than the Mem- bers of Congress and that the old rela- tionship have been distorted. Under the conference report, all the Federal judges get exactly what they get in the House bill except the Supreme Court Judges get $2,500 less than in the House bill. So that instead of the judges being raised by the conference report, one set of judges is lowered and the other Federal judges remain the same as in the House bill. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A4123 I was asked by someone if it were not true that sub-Cabinet people are being paid by the conference bill more than Members of Congress. This is also not true. Cabinet members were raised $2,500 from the House bill. The level II executives remain the same as in the House bill and the other three levels of executive pay were cut in con- ference rather than being increased. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle- man. Mr. CELLER. Naturally, being chair- man of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am interested in the salary of the Judges. Do I understand the gentleman to say that Judges of the Supreme Court have their salaries reduced by $2,500? If that is the case, may we know the reason why there has been such a reduc- tion? Mr. UDALL. I will say to the chair- man of the great Committee on the Ju- diciary that there is no reduction of the Supreme Court Judges' salaries. The Supreme Court Judges are actually get- ting an increase of $5,000. There is a $2,500 reduction from the figure in the House bill. Mr. CELLER. In substance what will Supreme Court Judges get now after the bill is passed and what was their salary before the bill is passed? Mr. UDALL. They are getting at the present time $35,000 with an additional amount for the Chief Justice. If this bill is passed, they will get $40,000. So they are getting a very substantial raise. Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle- man. Mr. JOHANSEN. In other words, the point is that the increase has been re- duced? Mr. UDALL. Precisely, I thank the gentleman. Just a couple of more observations and then I shall conclude. I think the Senate made a great mis- take and I regret very much that the House saw fit to delete the amendment that we adopted which had such broad support from my good friends on the left and from my good friends on the right. We are almost back now in congres- sional, judicial and executive salaries to where the commission in President Ei- senhower's term said that we should have been in 1954 and 1955. We cut and whittled the increases for the executive, for judges and for Members of Congress down and we had adopted in the House a far-reaching proposal which would have moved the salaries along in the fu- ture through the operation of automatic and fair machinery. The Senate did not pass this provision. It was deleted in conference. I think it is a very great mistake. I think it is machinery that is needed. Just, for example, 10 years ago the Randall commission recommended that the salaries of Members of Congress and the executives in similar positions be about $27,000. In 1955 this was com- promised badly, and now we have cut this down and down in compromises in this bill to where we end up today barely above the level we were told by the bi- partisan commission we should have been 10 years ago. I think it is a serious mistake but, as I say, I am interested in legislation. We are late in the session, and therefore I am going to urge the adoption of this conference report. Mr. CELLER, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. CELLER. Will the gentleman en- lighten us as to whether the members of the parole board will have their sala- ries increased by the passage of this bill? Mr. 'UDALL. I am advised by the staff that their salary is increased; yes. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. The gentleman men- tioned the Randall report of some time ago. There was a pay bill passed in 1962. The Randall report said, or RANDALL himself said, that this pay bill or rather the increase in pay would be taken care of through greater productivity. I have seen a lot of appropriation bills go through the mill since that time, and If any of this pay increase was taken care of through Mr. RANDALL'S increased pro- ductivity on the part of employees I have failed to find it, because every appropria- tion bill has carried money for increases as a result of the 1962 act. Mr. UDALL. I sharply disagree with the gentleman. Ten percent of the cost of this bill will be absorbed by the agen- cies, under a mandatory provision. We have heard dramatic testimony in our committee about efficiency and about savings in personnel. I do not attribute it all to a direct increase of, say, 5 per- cent in salary or anything of that kind, but there have been remarkable produc- tivity increases in the Federal Govern- ment. Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. JOHANSEN. Of course, the state- ment by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RANDALL] did not involve the ab- sorption of cost through attrition. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes additional to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL]. Mr. JOHANSEN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RANDALL] said that the increased efficiency would be such that there would be no additional out-of- pocket expense to ,the taxpayers. Mr. UDALL. Let me conclude with two observations. I believe the House of Representatives can be proud. We did the work on this bill. We started it. The House had the courage to do this in an election year. It has never been done before, that I know of, in an election year. We did this because it was a good bill and because it was good for efficiency of the Federal Government and because it had to be done. This is the first time that Congress has taken the whole Federal salary system and, in one bill, attempted to make an orderly, rational, interrelated structure. If we pass this legislation this week we can be proud. Let me call attention to one more thing. President Johnson, the leader for those of us over here, has fought for this bill. He helped us to resurrect it after it was defeated. I should like to say something my friends on the other side of the aisle may not have noted. Recently your chosen leader, and presidential nominee, one of my friends from Arizona voted for this bill. We from Arizona try to vote the way we see things?and when this bill came before the Senate about 3 weeks ago he supported it. He is a man who has been in business and knows one can- not get top executives on shoe clerk salaries. I say to my friends over here, "Follow your leader." We will follow our leader. We will both be going in the same direction. Let us pass this bill. The Supreme Court's Unwise Decisions on Apportionment EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ROBERT_T. MeLOSKEY OF' ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, August 5, 1964 Mr. McLOSKEY. Mr. Speaker, the most recent decisions of the Supreme Court regarding apportionment of State legislative bodies have rocked this coun- try. These decisions illustrate just how far the Court has strayed from any rea- sonable construction of its own rightful place among our political institutions. The recent and multiplying scourge of judgemade law which has set about to recklessly and antidemocratically reform a nation in the Court's image must be checked at once. The improper decisions of the Court in the apportionment cases demand, for the sake of our whole system of government, reversal. To accomplish this purpose, I have introduced legislation which would start the machinery for a constitutional amendment. The amendment would have the effect of overruling the Court's unwise decisions on apportionment and reestablishing some of the battered -States rights in this area. At this time, under unanimous consent, I would like to include in the RECORD, a copy of the statement which I submitted to the House Judiciary Committee in support of House Joint Resolution 1087: STATEMENVOF REPRESENTATIVE MCLOSKEY Mr. Chairman, the foundations of liberty are once again under attack by the Supreme Court. In the most recent decisions by that branch it has been declared that State legis- lative bodies, representing the people of the States, are no longer able to determine their Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9- A4124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A?, rpit 5 own apportionment systems. In these de- cisions a giant stride away from the system of guarded liberties, which the Constitution established, has been made. House Joint Resolution 1087, which would restore some of those liberties the Court has threatened. is the subject of my presentation here today. House Joint Resolution 1087 would call into operation the amending process of the Constitution in order to provide that a State legislature would have the constitutional prerogative of apportioning one house of Its State assembly on some basis other than population. The amending process has not been referred to very frequently with suc- cess in the history of this country?a dozen times in the past century and a half. An amendment to the Constitution is a grave action to be relied upon only with the utmost care and after arduous consideration. It is after such care and consideration that I have introduced House Joint Resolution 1087. The necessity of this proposal has been demanded by certain decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which wantonly fly in the face of history and openly ignore the explicit statements of the U.S. Constitution. The Court. over the cogent and articulate warn- ings of Justices Harlan. Clark. and Stewart. has vindicated a special theory of political representation as the only one acceptable un- der the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. By newly established Court con- structed precedents, by typically nista)! Su- preme Court logic, by completely ignoring the history of our country, and by openly ignoring the clear words of the Constitu- tion, the Court has removed from the people the sovereign power to establish their own State representative assemblies on grounds which are not explicitly p-ohibited by the Federal Constitution. The recent rash of political decisions handed down by the Su- preme Court are clearly based on the per- sonal political prejudices of the Justices masquerading under such theories of judicial review as "activism- and "developing con- stitutionalism." The ways in which these pernicious theories of judicial review en- danger our system of government are many. First, the Court has done Immediate wrong to the States affected by their decision. By robbing the States of their sovereign power to apportion their own legislatures by politi- cal process, the Supreme Court has taken one of the most fundamental of legislative prerogatives; and by so doing, has effectively reduced State government to a hollow fa- cade. The Federal judiciary has taken to It- self the power to pass on the acceptability of State apportionment, and could presumably dictate the political climate of a State by gerrymandering from the bench. In wrong- ing the States by disallowing theories of representative government acceptable for centuries, the Court has also wronged the people of the affected States by denying them the right to decide their own criteria for legislative apportionment. And clearly. the Constitution does not deny the people these rights. As Justice Harlan pointed out in his dissent in Reynolds v. Sims. the only section of the Constitution dealing directly with State legislative apportionment recog- nizes and accepts the possibility of imposed inequities in the right to vote. Paragraph 2 of the 14th amendment which the majority of the Court flatly ignored spells out the remedy?and it is an optional remedy?for a reduction by a State in the size of its quali- fied electorate. The 15th amendment pro- hibits a State from denying a citizen the right to vote merely because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The lath amendment adds to the list of reasons why the right to vote may not be abridged. a person's sex. The 24th amendment would add to the list, the payment of a special tax. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to vote guaranteed against abridgment or par- tial abridgment on the basis of place of real- dence. The Supreme Court of the United States has no legitimate right to declare that such a_prohibition exists when, in fact, it clearly does not. If, when the 14th amend- ment and the constituent equal protection clause was ratified, geographic factors were supposed to have been eliminated from con- sideration In legislative apportionment, a statement to that effect surely would have been added to the prohibitions of the con- temporary 15th amendment. And if, by oversight, the people of the United States omitted It there, surely they would have included it in the later 19th amendment which also altered suffrage or in the most recent 24th amendment which once again affected the franchise. The undeniable fact of the matter is that the American people have never overwhelmingly held to the "one- man. one-vote" theory of representative gov- ernment; the fact that the Supreme Court thinks they should have, notwithstanding. One wrong, then, that the apportionment decisions accomplish is a deprivation of State's rights. The Court. in the abused name of personal rights, has denied the rights of the States and vindicated, above all else. Court's rights--the rights of the courts to make any of their own private prejudices and moral convictions the law of the land. Yet, if in trampling States rights the Court has gone beyond the wildest dreams of judi- cial activists and beyond any reasoned un- derstanding of the Constitution, the greatest wrong which the Court has inflicted is against the Constitution itself and the free government it established. The lingrent exercise of what Justice Har- lan has dubbed the "amending power" of he Supreme Court threatens, above all else, our separation of powers. Now, In the 20th century, when the need for the division of powers, both horizontal and vertical, Is most urgent. the Court is breaking down the walls. Now, when power and authority are easily and rapidly pyramided, when the advances in the study of molding masses into con- forn-inv are progressing steadily, an effec- tive system of power diffusion is paramount. We. who are aware of the truism that abso- lute power corrupts absolutely, cannot sit by and watch the Supreme Court destroy the checks for liberty which our Constitu- tion clearly set down. We must remember, too, that the checks and balances in our system do not always execute themselves, especially when one branch develops a crav- ing lust for control. The relationships of the branches to each other is constantly varying and In danger of reaching a state of imbalance. When such an imbalance is evi- dent., action is the responsibility of the branch whose powers are being usurped. The Court, time and again in the past 10 years. has assumed legislative powers and ha a ignored State authority, and so the Con- gress and the States must act. The Court's action presents a danger to the Constitution in still another way. The re- cent decisions which use the Constitution as a substitute for a legal code, and which are based on the theory that every supposed Ill which befalls the American people has a solution in the Constitution, is a serious danger to the Constitution. The Constitution does not go to great lengths to demand that Government achieve certain ends thought by judges to constitute justice. What a constitution in fact and in theory does is to establish a government, de- fine its powers and limits, and allow it to determine its own ends and its own defini- tions of justice. Judicial notions of social and political justice cannot be allowed to stand as the law of the land. If they were, the dynamics of our free society, devoted to republican principles and government by representative elections would inevitably give way to general abdication of responsibility which is so characteristic of government by lawsuit or dictate. I would also remind my fellow Representa- tives that capricious usurpation of power, whether in the name of the majority. tne minority, the rich, the poor, justice or a- justice, is tyranny. Our real liberties are protected by our unique system of checks and balances which sacrifices quick action and expediency for personal freedom. Oar system is and must remain more important than isolated and controversial policy re- forms, and the Supreme Court is threatening that system. Last, but not least, among those whom the Court has 'wronged in the apportionme decisions is the Supreme Court itself. As Justice Frankfurter was always quick to point out. the Court cannot continue to gallop through the political thicket wt:h reckless abandon and expect not to get its robes torn. Because the Court has no man- date from the people, because it has no power to lay or collect taxes, and because it has no armies, it Is dependent for its legitimacy and efficacy upon the good will of the peop:e. From newspapers and from my own ee- perience with the public. I can attest that this good will is wearing quite thin. This present Court is in danger of wrecking itself as an effective political institution. I recognize that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution must be something more than a means of scolding the Court. An amendment to the Constitution must be de- fensible on the grounds of what, in particn- lar, it seeks to accomplish. Above all else, the amendment envisioned In House Joint Resolution 1087 would seek merely to reestablish principles of represent- ative government older than the Nation itself. It has long been the practice of Americans to take into account factors other than popi- tattoo in the process of legislative appor- tionment. As a matter of historical fact. If State legislatures had been apportioned strictly on the basis of population at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the Constitution might never have been ratified at all. In the late 18th century there were also inequities in State legisla- tive districts, but at the time, they favored the city populations and acted to the detri- ment of the western farmers in each of the States. The political complexion of what was then the West was antifederalists, if not anarchistic. Had the principle of "one man, one vote" been fully accepted under these circumstances, the Constitution might never have been ratified. A system of representa- tion which produced the Constitution of tne United States cannot be all bad. The statements of Chief Justice Warren that: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres (;) ? ? [Li egislators are electnd by voters, not farina or cities or econorric interests ? ? ?" is alarming. If there seems to be one truism, above all others in Amer- ican politics it is that interest groups are an integral part of the political system. From Madison's "Federalist No. 10" to Beard's studies of American history to the work of the Nye committee, the realistic assumption in America has been that in- terest groups do play an active part in politics. What the Court has done is to turn their backs on the true conditions and tnerely Insure that the control of gover a- ment shifts from some groups to different groups. And I do not believe it is coinci- dence that the groups destined to rule -ay Court fiat are generally more sympathetic to the same causes of reform the Court has been serving. The function of geographical representa- tion has never been to represent trees or pastures, but it has been to insure a fair system of checks and balances in State gov- ernments among very real and differing ia- teresta. It is in this respect that the Court has deprived many minority interests of their checks -mon the actions of the n a- merical majority. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 /) The 6' Federal Diary 100,000 Face Loss Of Retroactive Pay Under New Raise By Jerry Kluttz A last-minute switch of sig- nals will prevent retroactive pay raises under the Morrison bill for thousands of Federal employes. Those by- passed are up- wards of 100,- 000 non-classi- fieds whose salaries are fixed by heads of their agen- cies. Senate- House confer- ees scrapped a proposal, sought by the White House and tentatively approved ear- lier by the conferees, to give agency heads power to make pay raises effective back to the first pay period in July. Conferees feared the provi- sion would set off a parlia- mentary hassle on the House floor that would have delayed Kluttz Chart showing new pay rates for Post Office em- ployes. Page C2. final congressional approval of the pay raise bill. Legisla- tive experts advised the con- ferees that the provision would be subject to attack as neither the original House nor Senate bill carried a similar section. A 1955 ruling by the Comp- troller General holds that agency heads have no author- ity to make salary increases for their employes effective retroactively. The White House sought to overcome this decision in order to give non- classifieds back-pay raises like classitietibra94gToy.dRApa groups flit 1.'ederial employes. As matters now stand higher salaries for non-classifieds will be effective at the beginnings of their first pay periods after the bill is signed into law, 'which could be today. L' Many here are among those who face the loss of retro- active pay. They are in the ? Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Agency, Atomic Energy Com- mission, the Government Printing Office and all jobs under what is known as Public Law 313. Also, local employes of the Army's National Guard, Se- , lective Service and Tennessee Valley Authority will. not get a ba pay as well as A scatter- ing of employes On Capitol Hill and in agencies such as Agriculture, Interior, Defense, etc. Members of Congress are aware of the injustice and the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee hopes to attach the authority as a rider to a non-controversial House- approved bill and get it enacted into law. Incidentally, FBI employes are under the Classification Act and are not non-classifieds, as I noted here the other day. They are exempt from Civil Service. Conferees also failed to continue the authority of the Panama Canal Co. to fix pay of its executives at rates higher than Grade 18 which is $24,500 in the Morrison bill. Another rider is being drafted to correct this problem.. Many Capitol Hill employes are both confused and un- happy over their pay boosts. Congress has so many differ- ent pay systems for its em- ployes that no general rules apply. Classified employes or those employes whose salaries fol- low rates in the Classification Act will get increases that av- erage only 4.3 per cent. Those paid through either the House Disbursing Office or the fi- nancial office of the Senate will get raises that average 10 per cent. Folding room em- ployes will get a I per cent raise. Higher salaries for employes In the offices a g enitors aren't automatic. Each Senator will have 15 days after the bill, e 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDIA38141M630068bC1050001-9 I 7) Ait,v- o. 196.4 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE for suggesting that there is some kind of special virtue about war, that man derives vigor from participation in war, whereas peace has a tendency to corrupt us with ease and somehow destroy the real muscle of a man; and that the only way we can really be men who can walk upright is to participate in combat with our fellow men. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have this editorial printed in the RECORD at this time, because I believe the editor does an excellent job of lay- ing that silly case to rest, reminding us again of the importance of what William James called, a good many years ago, the moral equivalent to war. I believe that we are still engaged in a search for the moral equivalent of war and that is, really, in my judgment, the hope and promise of most of the people who make up the Council for a Livable World. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WAR HAS NO VIRTUES (By Dwight Wm. Jensen) There is a man of limited prudence and judgment named Holmes Alexander who writes columns that are printed by the Idaho- Daily Statesman. A few weeks ago he did a piece on the vir- tues of war. He quotes a one-legged Medal of Honor winner who was headmaster when he went to school and who said war improves the breed. Any war which Holmes Alexander survives cannot be said to have improved the breed. Alexander refers to "bilious propaganda about the idiocies of war and the cloying virtues of everlasting peace." He speaks of "the brine and bilge of contemporary peace- mongering." He sneers at writers who write about ways to end all war, and he says it is "the nature of man" to make war, and that "it is not to be altered by any power less than our Maker." A better mind than Holmes Alexander's? and the 1960 census revealed that in Idaho alone there are nearly 700,000 better minds than Holmes Alexander's?Winston Church- ill, who has some experience with war, said, "War is little more than a catalog of mis- takes and misfortunes." So war can be eliminated only by our Maker? You recall the cliche "God helps those who help themselves." We remember also the late President Kennedy's words that, "On earth, God's work is ours." But Holmes Alexander would probably not care to quote Kennedy. The column we question appeared in the Statesman the day after that man's assassination and was a mocking sort of reflection upon Kennedy's search for peace. Alexander is one of those great patriots who does such things as criticize the Supreme Court for its decision about Bible reading in the public schools. If he had read the Bible, in the public schools or elsewhere, he would have come across some words by the Son of our Maker: "Blessed are the peacemakers." Mr. CHURCH. I commend the Sena- tor for the stand he has taken. I know him to be a man of great and good conscience?and of courage. I close by restating I do not believe that the United States?which budgets 80 percent of its national revenue to pro- grams related to warfare, past, present, or future, which spends more than half its annual operating budget to maintain No. 132 24 its Armed Forces, where a vast corporate complex has a vested interest in arma- ments, where hundreds of societies and veterans' groups constantly side with the military viewpoint?is a country which has much to fear from a small associa- tion of scientists, college professors, pro- fessional people, and ordinary parents who are alarmed about the fact that we have raised a stockpile of weapons of such nightmarish power, that, if ever detonated, would be the equivalent of ex- ploding a 20-ton bomb against the head of every inhabitant on this planet. These citizens, the target of attack this afternoon, are merely trying to do what they can to effect a disarmament program, with enforcement controls and mutual inspection procedures, which might, one day, make it possible for the human race to live free from fright, be- yond the shadow of a reckoning coming swift and final in the night. I cannot believe that theirs is a per- nicious influence, set upon the destruc- tion of the United States of America. I do not, of course, stand on the floor of the Senate this afternoon to underwrite everyhting that any of these advocates may have said or may propose, because I reserve the right to make my own judgment, Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the same right, also. Mr. CHURCH. I know the SenatOr from South Dakota does. I believe that the position he takes is a sound and sen- sible position. I commend him for it. Once again he renders his country a fine service, as he always has before, from the moment he first became a Sen- ator of the United States. Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his invaluable contri- bution. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield? Mr. McGOVERN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania. . Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for yielding to me. First, I should like to commend him, as well as my dear friend the Senator from Idaho for the fine comments they have made in rebuttal to the quite ex- traordinary statements made by a num- ber of Senators earlier this afternoon. I endorse everything that the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Idaho have said. I wish I could have said it as eloquently and as con- vincingly. I should like to pay my respects, briefly, to Mr. Holmes Alexander, who I note has been in the gallery while this series of speeches has been made. I know him of old. His writings are syndicated, for reasons which have al- ways escaped me, in one of our great metropolitan Pennsylvania newspapers. I shall not deal in innuendo. I should like, rather, to deal in provable facts. As the Senator from South Dakota am- ply demonstrated from the record a few moments ago, Mr. Alexander is and has been for years a rightwing radical whose political philosophy, if adopted, would clearly take us back to the jungle and 15209 remove many, if not all, of the benefits of civilization. Those are rather strong words, said in part, perhaps, in lighter vein. But, nonetheless, I firmly believe that Mr. Alexander has for years represented a philosophy on education exemplified by the one room, little red schoolhouse which has a rather supreme contempt for intellectualism and for eggheads, which would like to revert, in short, to the happy days of the early 19th century, turning its back on everything that has happened in the world since that date. I am amazed that any Senator would take seriously these ridiculous and down- right silly charges of Mr. Alexander against the Council for a Livable World. I am proud to have received in the campaign of 1962, when I ran for re- election, rather significant contributions from members of the Council for a Liv- able World, who were encouraged to make contributions in my behalf by Mr. Leo Szilard, now unhappily dead, but one of the great scientists of the modern world and one of the inventors?as the Senator from South Dakota has said?of the atomic bomb, a man who devoted the declining years of his life, after he knew that he had incurable cancer, to the cause of peace and to the cause of a livable world. I often wonder why Mr. Alexander, who follows that rightwing line of his, does not attack the real advocates in this country of general and complete dis- armament under enforcible world law. Why does he not attack Christian Her- ter, who was Secretary of State, and the first American of prominent office to ad- vocate general and complete disarma- ment under enforcible world law? Why does he not attack our late be- loved President John F. Kennedy, who in three magnificent speeches, two of them in the United Nations, and the third at American University in the Dis- trict of Columbia, laid it on the line that the foreign policy of our country was to advance the same cause which the Coun- cil for a Livable World has been ad- vancing, and for advancing which it has come under attack by Mr. Alexander and his rightwing cohorts. Why does he not attack John McCloy? Why does he not attack Arthur Dean? Why does he not attack William Foster? Indeed, why does he not attack Presi- dent Lyndon Baines Johnson, who advo- cates the same principles of foreign pol- icy and disarmament which the Council for a Livable World is proud to espouse, to recommend, and to support? What disturbs me is the attitude in the Senate toward the cause of peace, a just and enduring peace, negotiated from strength. For I believe, to borrow the words of the late President Kennedy, "that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to ne- gotiate." We saw some rather ugly things in the Senate during the debate on the test ban treaty last year. The belligerence in the Senate which was referred to by the Senator from Idaho, is the same spirit of belligerence which was attacked by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE last public address he made while still President of the United States. I do not like to see that spirit, of belligerence in the Senate. I do not like to see that archaic and obsolete attitude toward the problems of the modern world. I would hope, perhaps, that some mild change in that climate might be created by the ac- tion of the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Idaho. who have shown the courage to rise on the floor of the Senate and state their own supreme convictions and their strong support of the policies of three Presidents of the United States?Eisenhower. Kennedy, Johnson?in support of a just and a livable world. I thank my friend from South Dakota for yielding to me. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Idaho for their moving, eloquent, and informed state- ments here today. I was assured of my position before I took the floor this afternoon. But I am more assured of it after listening to the persuasive elo- quence of those two Senators who have done so much in the cause of peace. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I did not hear all of the discussion on the Republican side this afternoon, as I was in and out of the Chamber. But I did hear the names of certain Members on this side mentioned. I am afrold that the implications were such as to make it difficult for them in their personal and Political carers. I am quite sure that was not the in- tent. I wish to say publicly, as majority leader of the Senate, that insofar as I am concerned. I have no doubt about the patriotism, integrity, and the devotion of men like the Senator from South Da- kota I Mr. MCGOVERN1, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], and others. They have performed capably, well, and in the highest traditions of this body since they first became Members of the Senate. So as far as being for unilateral disarma- ment is concerned, as one Senator seemed to indicate. I do not know of a Senator on either side who is in favor of unilateral disarmament. The Senator from South Dakota has a distinguished war record as a bomber pilot in World War II. He is the holder of the Distinguished Flying Cross. The distinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH] served with distinction in the China-Burma-India area. I do not know of a Democratic or Republican Senator whose integrity, patriotism, or devotion to his country should be im- pugned in any way, even by implication. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. if the Senator from South Carolina is will- ing. I would ask the Chair to make sure that the Chamber is kept fairly clear during this debate. The Senate will be in session until a relatively late hour this evening because of circumstances which are apparent to all. I thank the Senator from 4critth C r - lina for yielding. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY ItEFORIVI ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government. and for other purposes. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President. as chairman of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee. I am proud to report to the Senate the committee's unanimous approval of H.R. 11049. with amendment. the Federal Employees Sal- ars, Act of 1964. This leeislation is a broad and all-in- clusive pay adjustment measure which, in my view, will rank among the most important actions of the Congress in re- cent, years to strengthen the Federal Government and increase its efficiency. I particularly emphasize that the com- mittee's report is a unanimous report. Members of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee oil both sides of the aisle, working harmoniously and with nonpartisan objectives, have together studied and discussed H.R. 11049 title by title. section by section, and, in some cases, line by line. The work of the members of the committee has been dili- gent, conscientious, and devoted. They have responded to word from the Presi- dent of the United States that this meas- ure is one of the most important in his legislative program for the 88th Con- gress, and their response, consisting of hard work in long daily meetings, has been made at a particular time in the history of the Senate when many other important demands were being made upon their time and energies. I con- gratulate the committee on the spirit in which the members have undertaken to improve HR. 11049 as passed by the House of Representatives, and as chair- man I thank them each individually for their intelligent and effective coopera- tion with the President and with me. This bill, as reported, is directed to- ward accomplishing four purposes which will remedy a number of Inequities and will establish pay relationships resulting in greater efficiency in the Federal civil- ian service and increased economy throughout all Government operations. The purposes of H.R. 11049 are: First. Ti) reaffirm the commitment of the Congress to the policy of adjusting the civilian career salary systems in ac- cordance with the principle of compara- bility. This policy, one of the most rea- sonable and far-reaching determinations ever made by the Congress in the field of Federal pay, was declared in the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962, which clearly states the sense of the Congress that? Federal salary rates shall be comparable with private enterprise salary rates for the me levels of work. Second. To establish a new, consistent, and rational salary structure for posi- 1 tions of the highest level in the Federal Government. Third. To provide for the first time a logical relationship between career sail,- ries under the civilian statutory pay sys- 'terns and the salaries of top positions in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Fourth. To adopt a salary structure which will respond to the present-thy needs of the Federal Government, to Use end that reemitment and retention of personnel of the very highest level-- from the bottom to the top?can be ac- complished. Perhaps the most widely discussed sec- tion of H.R. 11049 is its provision for an increase in the annual salaries of the Members of he Congress from $22.5C0 to $30.000 a year. Increases in congres- sional pay constitute a touchy and con- troversial pronlem always. Ignoring th:s problem will not make it go away. The committee, recognizing the con- stitutional injunction that the Senate and House must establish the rate of pay for its own Members, has tried to abide by its responsibility. It is our judgmer t that the compensation of Senator and Congressmen ought to be increased by $7,500 per annum. No one who serves in the Congress can be unaware that our duties and responsibilities have increased substantially since 1955, when congres- sional pay 'as raised from $15,000 a year. We ale all thoroughly familiar with the costs incurred in maintaining two homes and with the necessity fcr frequent trips to our home States, where we can listen to the views of those who sent us here. We all know that the days of midsummer adjournment are prob- ably gone forever, and that ours has be- come more than a full-time job. In my opinion, these facts of life must be squarely faced and reckoned with, not only for the benefit of present incum- bents, but also for those who follow vs in the Senate and the House. I say again that the congressional in- crease endorsed by the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee is intended for the office and not for the presert Member. It reflects not only the finan- cial realities of running and serving, but also the prestige, dignity, and status cf the Congress and its Members. I are confident that when H.R. 11049 comes to a vote, the Senate will face forthrightly its difficult responsibility for establish- ing equitable pay for its Members. This action to adjust Federal compen- sation up and down the line comes none to soon. The Salary Reform Act of 1962 provides that the President shall report annually to the Congress his recommen- dations?based upon studies conducted by the Bureau of Labor statistics?for any Federal salary adjustments he deems advisable. In accordance with the 1962 act, President Kennedy more than a year ago recommended comparability pay in- creases similar to those provided for ii H.R. 11049: and suggestions for execu- tive, legislative, and judicial pay have been before the Congress since the report last year of the President's advisory panel on Federal salary systems, the Randall report. The fact that Congress did not act in 1963 to adjust Federal compensation has Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964, Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE resulted in many unfortunate inequities and an alarming departure of Federal pay from the comparability pay line. The fact that the recommendations of the Randall report have not been inter- preted into Federal legislation until now has resulted, furthermore, in serious dif- ficulty for the President in obtaining and keeping the services of men of high cali- ber for the top-most executive positions in the Government. The President has told me on more than one occasion that this is true. The salary provisions for executive pay have been scaled down from the Randall recommendations, in recogni- tion of the fact that in the upper levels of the Federal service?both career and executive?the Government can never financially reward its top officials in such a way as to compete with private enterprise. In other words, while the committee endorses?and trusts that the Senate will continue to endorse?the principle of comparability in all ranks other than those at the top, we are aware that those who serve their country in positions of high rank in all three branches of the Government must be willing to accept far less than their counterparts in the private economy. This fact is recognized as part and parcel of our national life. Neverthe- less, it is my view that the sacrifice that many of our leaders in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have been asked to make are too great. The Increases provided in this measure will go a long way toward rectifying a situa- tion which all recent Presidents, partic- ularly Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, have deplored and which they have time and again asked the Congress to correct. The report of the President's advisory panel is most pertinent on this subject. The panel makes these points: It is not uncommon in the history of our country to ask our citizens to give up a high income to accept a lesser one in a responsible Federal office. But the sacrifice ought to be of a kind which many capable men?not just a few?are financially prepared to make. Further- more, there are many able young men who have had no time to accumulate financial reserves. The country should not be denied the services of these men because of inadequate Federal pay scales. The Nation cannot afford to de- pend only upon rich men to run its affairs. One of the most reasonable and bene- ficial provisions of title III, the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964, is the es- tablishment of an orderly series of five levels of executive compensation. Over the years through the various executive pay acts and organic legislation estab- lishing new Federal agencies, some 19 different executive pay levels have sprung up within the Federal service. On occasion, the need for increased com- pensation has been reflected in the sal- aries paid the directors of newly created agencies, while similar top officials of older agencies have been overlooked. The prominence of some agencies as op- posed to the inconspicuousness of others has also sometimes resulted in unjusti- fiable executive salary differentials. This bill for the first time brings to- gether an orderly and rational system of five levels, in which positions of equal rank and responsibility receive equal compensation. This arrangement is the result of intensive study and close co- operation between the committees of the Senate and House on the one hand, and the Bureau of the Budget on the other, and the administrative agencies, also. As passed by the House, H.R. 1104b established six pay levels of executive compensation. The top three levels? levels 1, 2, and 3?are listed by position. The lower three levels?levels 4, 5, and 6?would be filled under the House bill through placement which the President would be authorized to make in accord- ance with standards spelled out in the act. The Senate committee, on the recom- mendation of the Budget Bureau, has eliminated level VI entirely. This level was composed of a limited number of executives who could be most appro- priately placed, it was felt, in level 5 or, for pay purposes, in the top grades of the general schedule. This arrangement also relieved the pay compression which existed between the executive salary schedule and the general schedule when there were six executive levels. The committee has further amended the House bill to provide for statutory listing of the positions in levels 4 and 5, as opposed to granting placerrient au- thority to the President. The committee noted, however, that the president ought to have additional authority with regard to the executive schedule, so that he may respond to changes in organization, management responsibilities, or work apportionment in the executive branch. Accordingly, the bill as reported gives authority to the President to add 20 ad- ditional positions within levels 4 and 5. Perhaps some of them would come from the regular classification list below, and some could be adjusted between level 4 and level 5. In general, the committee endorsed the rationale of the executive salary schedule established in the House bill. Certain changes, however, were made. The com- pensation of Cabinet members is in- creased from $32,500 to $35,000, this change taking into account the heavy responsibilities of Cabinet officers and the prestige which accompanies these high positions and the necessary spend- ing of money by Cabinet officials. The $30,000 salary for the deputies of Cabinet members has not been changed. These are the second highest Adminis- trators in the executive branch, in many cases the directors of the daily opera- tions of the Nation's departments and agencies. Accordingly, they should be adequately compensated, but at a rate reflecting the differences between their duties and those of Cabinet members. The committee's action in endorsing $30,000 a year for deputy department heads and the same salary for Members of the Congress follows the traditional pay alinement in which Cabinet mem- bers are the only group paid more than Members of Congress. The committee has reduced slightly the salaries for executives in levels 3, 4, 15211 and 5; from $29,000 to $28,500 for level 3; from $28,000 to $27,000 for level 4; and from $27,000 to $26,000 for level 5. These are the changes in the bill as reported from the House. It is my view that the Senate schedule more nearly reflects the responsibilities of the three lower levels and their rela- tionship to levels 2 and 1. The Randall panel makes clear the need for pay increases in judges, offi- cers, and employees of the judiciary. The committee accepted the salary scales for Federal judges enacted by the House, taking note of the fact that the increases are in the neighborhood of $7,500, the same amount of increase which was approved for Members of Congress. The committee changed the annual salary of the Director of the Ad- ministrative Office of the U.S. Courts from $28,000 to $27,000 and the salary of the Deputy Director from $27,000 to $26,000, in recognition of the fact that these salaries were alined with levels 4 and 5 of the executive salary schedule established at $27,000 and $26,000. Ad- ditionally, the committee reduced the salary of commissioners of the court of claims from $27,000 to $26,000. In its discussions of compensation for the judiciary, the committee took into account the constitutional provision that Federal judges are appointed for life and that their salaries are discontinued only in the event of death, resignation, or impeachment. Thus, when Federal judges become inactive?optionally after 15 years at age 65 or after 10 years at age 70?they may, in effect, retire on full salary. It was noted also that many judges, upon reaching retire- ment age, continue their duties on a part-time basis while drawing full compensation. H.R. 11019 provides pay increases for employees under the Classification Act ranging from approximately 3 percent in the lower grades, where comparabil- ity has been achieved, through 22.2 per- cent for grade 18, where the comparabil- ity pay line and the Classification Act pay line are still widely separated. It will be recalled that grades 16, 17, and 18, which will receive substantial pay increases under this bill, received no pay increases in January 1964 as did all other grades of the schedule. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question at this point? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. It has been said that a large increase will be allowed to the classes just mentioned by the Senator, grades 16, 17, and 18, and that is- be- cause the last time there was a pay raise these classified workers were not in- cluded. My question is whether the large increase which is now being granted is justified. What would have been the percentage increase if it had been granted when the last increase was made and the increase that these people would be entitled to now? In other words, does the large increase now exceed what the combined increase would be if it had been granted 3 years ago and again now. Mr. JOHNSTON. If you refer to grades 16, 17, and 18 the answer is "Yes." Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 15212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Mr. LAUSCHE. What is the percent- age of the pay raise for this classifica- tion? Mr. JOHNSTON. The highest would be approximately 22 percent for grade 18. However, percentage increases in the lower grades are much smaller. Mr. LAUSCHE, 22 percent. That 22 percent compares to what in the low classification? Mr. JOHNSTON. GS-1 gets 3.1 per- cent. This grade has had many in- creases in the years past, when the higher grades were not increased . Mr. LAUSCHE. Class 1 would require seven increases of 3 percent to bring it up to the 22 percent that would be granted to the highest. Is that correct? Mr. JOHNSTON. In that class the Government employs only 1,356 persons. Those are the charwomen, custodial laborers, and others in similar work categories. Their pay compares favor- ably with what they would get in private enterprise for similar work. That was all taken into consideration when the percentage increase was determined. Mr. LAUSCHE. When was the pay raise granted that did not include the high classified people? Mr. JOHNSTON. Grades 16, 17. and 18 received no increase in January of this year, when all other grades received an increase previously enacted. Mr. LAUSCHE. When did it happen prior to that time? Was that about 1962? Mr. JOHNSTON. October 1962. Mr. LAUSCHE. Were the high grades included in the 1962 pay raise? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. LAUSCHE. If the low grade re- ceived an increase of 3 or 4 percent in January of this year. how can we justify granting a 22-percent increase 5 or 6 months later to the high grade? I can- not follow that. Mr. JOHNSTON. Because it is the committee's view that these top officials under the Classification Act deserve an increase. The administration has ad- vocated it. The Bureau of the Budget has advocated it. That is what we are here for. Mr. LAUSCHE. Is it on the basis of comparability in private industry that this high 22 percent has been granted? Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct. Even with the increase. grade 18 would be below comparability. The Bureau of the Budget, the Civil Service Commis- sion and the President of the United States have advocated attempting to at- tain comparability. The House has al- ready acted by a big majority. We are here trying to do what we think is right and just. That is what I am here to do. Mr. LAUSCHE. In addition to the increase of 22 percent, will the high classified employees in the course of time also become the beneficiaries of Increased retirement pay on the basis of the new schedule? Mr. JOHNSTON. They will, but that will be over a term of years. The retire- ment system provides that the 5 high- est years be taken into consideration. It is the average for the 5 highest years. A bill is pending in committee, on which some hearings have already been held. in connection with which the ad- ministration is advocating that certain changes be made in regard to the financ- ing of the retirement system, to provide that it will be fiscally sound. The Gov- ernment sill have to pay more into the fund for the reason that for over two- thirds of the years of the existence of the retirement fund the Government has not been paying its full share. Another rea- son is that many of the employees of the Government are ex-servicemen. and they did not have to contribute toward retire- ment for the years of military service, but they are credited toward retirement for those years of service with the armed services. The Civil Service Commission has asked that we amend existing law to reform the method of financing the re- tirement fund. The committee is work- ing on that bill Mr. LAUSCHE. To get back to the other point, the increase that would go to Members of Congress, from $22,500 to $30.000, would also provide a new re- muneration to the Members of Congress in the form of an increase in retirement pay at the end of each year. Is that cor- rect? Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is cor- rect. Mr. LAUSCHE. We will go into that at a later time. Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield for a ques- tion? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I have been working on an amendment that I hope will appeal to the Senator. It would provide, first, that a Member of Con- gress, in order to obtain his increase, must certify that he is of the opinion that his services are worth that much money; second, that he believes the in- crease is necessary in order to provide for the essential expenses of rendering the services that are essential to his con- stituents and for the living expenses for himself and his dependents. Does the Senator from South Caro- lina really think it is necessary to pro- vide a pay raise for persons who feel that they might not want it. such as those who do not have children in college and do not incur expenses which might Jus- tify an increase in pay? Mr. JOHNSTON. That is a good ques- tion. I do not want, to amend the bill along these lines; but I have thought at times that anyone who thinks he does not deserve the pay increase should be glad to give it back to the Government. The Government is there, waiting. That per- son could give back the amount of his increase. If he did not think he was worth it. he could give it back. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I am aware of the position of one Member of Con- gress, who says that after he pays his taxes, he donates to the church whatever he has left.. I do not see any particular point in giving a person a pay raise so that he can give more money to his church. In a way, that conflicts with the doctrine of the separation of church and state, if all we are doing is paying money by way of a pay raise to enable the re- cipient to Rive it to a church. July Mr. JOHNSTON. Members of th.. Senate and House will give back about 42 percent of the pay raise. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. In incom,?. taxes? Mr. JOHNSTON. In income taxes. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I would hope that we could work that out. If any Member of Congress really believes that his services are not worth the amount or the increase, he should not take it out 0.1 the Treasury; it ought to stay in the Treasury. The people ought to have an opportunity to elect some cutrate Rep- resentatives, if they wish. One could say in his platform. "I am not worth as much as another fellow. I am not worth that much salary"; and he could make his case on the basis that he is not worth. that much for his services. I hope the Senator from South Caro- lina will feel kindly toward my amend- ment. I do not feel that we should force on people money that they think is not necessary. That would be wasteful. With that qualification, I am willing to vote for the Senator's bill. Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Sen- ator. The substantial precentage increases for the upper grades are, in my opinion, warranted and deserved. The committee acted to rectify what it considered an inconsistency in the House-approved general schedule, with respect to the so-called middle grades. Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 were reduced from the President's recommendations to rates which reflect salary increases of less than 3 percent of present salary rates. Taking into account the contri- bution to the Federal service which is made by this important middle-manage- ment group, the committee increased the compensation of these grades to a 3- percent level. Similar increases were given the middle grades in the Foreign Service and the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Adminis- tration. The bill has been amended to pro- vide for 1-year step increases through step 7 for all levels of the PFS schedule. Under the 1962 act, 1-year increases through step 7 were limited to the first six levels, with 2 years being required in steps 6 and 7 for levels 7 and above. This has resulted in pay inequities caused by the longer service periods re- quired?particularly in levels 7, 8, and 9?in steps 6 and 7 of the PFS schedule. The result has been rapidly diminishing salary differentials between level 7 on the one hand and levels 5 and 6 on the other, resulting from the fact that per- sonnel in the lower levels advance more rapidly through the steps of the schedule. The committee amendment will remedy these inequities and will ma- terially benefit important groups of personnel in the postal service?super- visors, postmasters, inspectors, and others?many of whom spend the greater part of their postal careers in levels 7, 8, or 9. The committee is in agreement with the Post Office Department that post- masters of fourth-class offices are, in general, being inadequately compen- sated under schedule II of the 1962 act. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 1964 _Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15213 The Department's proposal to substitute a new schedule based upon PFS-5 and the number of service hours required on the part of the postmaster was carefully studied. It was the committee's view, however, that this proposed schedule, providing increases averaging approxi- mately 27 percent, overcompensated for the deficiency. Accordingly, the act has been amended to provide for a new fourth-class office schedule, based upon six levels of revenue units. The per- centage increases vary in general within the range of 10 to 15 percent, with in- creases substantially higher than 15 per- cent for postmasters of fourth-class of- fices in the lower levels, where increases are most urgently needed. This modification of the Department's original proposal represents an equitable solution to the problem of marginal pay for fourth-class postmasters with low re- ceipts, and provides significant and de- served salary increases for all other post- masters of fourth-class offices. The House-passed schedule would cost ap- proximately $12.7 million, while that of the Senate schedule would cost approxi- mately $4.8 million. We took this up with the Post Office Department, too, and were informed that this would be agreeable to them. The last pay raise granted congres- sional employees was an across-the- board increase of 7 percent in 1962. They received no schedule 2 increase, which, Senators will recall, was the sec- ond increment of the 1962 pay increase, becoming effective for employees of the executive branch in January 1964. The committee has endorsed the pay- increase formula for congressional em- ployees as set forth in the House meas- ure. It provides for graduated raises ranging from 5 percent in the lower lev- els to 211/2 percent in the upper. It is my belief that this schedule recognizes the principle of comparability and satis- factorily alines the pay for our congres- sional employees with that of officials of their rank and responsibility in the ex- ecutive branch. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. Do I correctly un- derstand that in the previous pay bill, the increase in salaries for congressional workers was? percent? Mr. JOHNSTON. It was 7 percent across the board. Mr. ELLENDER. That was in 1962, was it not? Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct. Mr. ELLENDER. Under that pay bill, the top salary of an administrative as- sistant to a Senator could be fixed at $18,884. Mr. JOHNSTON. That was for one person in the office. Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that; but others would get similar raises. In the bill which the Senator now proposes to have enacted, the base pay of $8,880 and a gross rate of $18,884 would result in a 211/2 percent increase for administrative assistants and cause their salaries to go up $22,945. Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct. Mr. ELLENDER. That is more than the salary Senators receive today. Mr. JOHNSTON. That is true. We propose to raise the salaries of Senators in the bill, by 33 percent. Mr. ELLENDER. How can they jus- tify raising the salary, let us say, of the Sergeant at Arms, who now receives $21,500, to $27,500, an increase of $6,000? How can that be justified? In addition, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, as I understand, is provided with the use of an automobile and a chauffeur. Mr. JOHNSTON. That is what the Appropriations Committee lets him have. Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that; but how can the committee justify that? How can the Senator from South Caro- lina go back home and tell his people that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate has been raised in salary from $21,500 to $27,500, or an increase of $500 a month, and is provided with an automobile and a chauffeur to drive it? Mr. JOHNSTON. Regarding the chauffeur and the automobile, it must be remembered that there are some oc- casions when the Sergeant at Arms is required to go out and advise Senators that they are needed back in the Chamber. Mr. ELLENDER. There is a car pool across the street which can be used for that purpose. The salary of the Secretary of the Senate is to be raised from $21,500 to $27,500 or the same increase as the Ser- geant at Arms?$500 a month, or $6,000 per year. How can the committee justify such an increase when an increase of 7 percent has already been given in 1962 and this increases the amount to 27.9 percent? Mr. JOHNSTON. All this was based upon grounds of comparability. Mr. ELLENDER. Of what? Mr. JOHNSTON. Along lines com- parable to salaries paid on the outside. Remember that this is for the whole of the Federal Government. Go to New York and see what the chief of police up there is paid. Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator compare the Sergeant at Arms to the chief of police of New York City? Mr. JOHNSTON. This position must be compared to that of those performing jobs of a similar nature, yes. I do not limit it to New York, of course. Mr. ELLENDER. I notice that the salary of the Architect of the Capitol would be raised from $20,700 to $26,000, or 26.1 percent. Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is cor- rect. Mr. ELLENDER. Only 2 years ago, we gave him an increase of 7 percent. I am wondering how the committee could present the Senate with a bill of this kind. District judges will be paid $30,- 000, an increase of 331/3 percent. Judg- ships are life .appointments which is a valuable consideration in itself. Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator will notice that we have reduced many sal- aries below those approved in the House measure. Mr. ELLENDER. Some of the what? Mr. JOHNSTON. Some of those sal- aries have been cut below approved by the House. Mr. ELLENDER. I am talking about the Senate carrying out its responsibility. I know what the House did. It did a bad job. But I did not expect the commit- tee to come before the Senate and try to duplicate what the House did?more or less, because that is just what the com- mittee did. Will the Senator from South Carolina tell us, assuming that every Senator will increase his force according to the tables laid out in this bill, how much it will cost a year; does the Senator know? Mr. JOHNSTON. In this particular bill, there will be a certain amount of money which can be spent; and the Sen- ator can spend as much of it as he wishes, in accordance with the provisions of the bill. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator knows what happens, of course. Mr. JOHNSTON. That is what any Senator would be able to do in his office. Not a year has gone by that I have not turned back money in my own office. Mr. ELLENDER. The same applies to me. Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe that many Senators have done so. However, each Senator will be given a certain amount of money to operate his office. Mr. ELLENDER. Why give it? Why arrange the scale so high that a Sena- tor's administrative assistant will be constantly dissatisfied from here on out until he is paid the highest salary per- mitted under, the bill? Some Senators give the raises automatically and this creates dissatisfaction among the assist- ants of those who do not. Mr. JOHNSTON. Because many Sen- ators cannot get the people with the abilities they need for their offices from their own particular States without pay- ing them salaries such as will be found in this bill, and which are in relation to their abilities. That is the reason we put them in. Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator mean to say that it is hard to get an assistant to help in his office? Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator from Chicago and the Senator from New York and other places-- Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator does not have to pay it, unless he wishes to do so. I yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. It is true that the city of New York has the same name as the State of New York? Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am very proud to come from the city of Chicago but I also come from the great State of Illinois. Mr. JOHNSTON. Illinois. The Sena- tor is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope that "Illinois" will be substituted for "Chicago." Mr. JOHNSTON. Of course?Illinois. Mr. ELLENDER. When I first came to the Senate, as I recall, our little pages? and I love them all?were given $5 a day for the days they worked. In this bill, their pay will be raised to more than $5,000 a year. I hope they make that much money when they get out of college. I believe that we have gone to an ex- treme on this subject. I am hopeful Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R0005000500Q1-9 15214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 1 that a good look will be taken at this bill and that the Senate will make an attempt to trim it down. because I be- lieve it is absolutely wrong, particularly when we consider that we just lowered taxes and increased salaries in 1962. Here we are, preparing to slap on the backs of the American people an addi- tional burden which will cost in excess of half a billion dollars a year. Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator will notice in the bill that many of the salaries in the Senate version arc below those of the House. Mr. ELLENDER. That does not make it good for the Senate. Mr. JOHNSTON. But we must keep them somewhat in line. Does not the Senator agree with that? Mr. ELLENDER. Keep whom in line? Mr. JOHNSTON. Salaries in the two Houses. If we do not have similar pay scales many people now working in the Senate will wish to go over and work in the House. Mr. ELLENDER. I did not know there was that much competition. Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President. will the Senator from South Carolina yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. PASTORE. I address myself to the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Com- mittee [Mr. JOHNSTONE As the chair- man of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, I notice that there have been two changes made in the Senate bill as against the House bill. Let me emphasize that it Is not so much the money involved as much as it is the principle that concerns me. The reason I bring it up now is that I am hopeful the Senator will give some thought to the colloquy we are going to engage in, so that when I bring up my amendment we can be in accord as to what is meant. I notice that the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission has been placed in level 2. The other four mem- bers of the Commission have been placed in level 4. The House placed the chairman In level 2, but it placed the other members of the committee in level 3. The Senate committee dropped it down a further level. The point I wish to make, and I be- lieve it should be brought to the atten- tion of the committee. is the fact that in 1954 and again in I955?and I believe I shall be substantiated in this by my distinguished colleague from the State of Tennessee?there was a serious ques- tion which came UP in committee as to what authority. Derogative, and respon- sibility each of the five members should have. In considering the 1954 amend- ments to the Atomic Energy Act there was a proposal that the chairman be the principal officer of the Commission. After much debate that was not ac- cepted. The Joint Committee on Atomic Eller- f!:Y and the Conssress repudiated that philosophy. We wrote in the law specifically at. that time: Each member of the Commission, includ- ing the Chairman shall have equal respon- A:ditty and authority in all decisions and at- tions of the Commission and shall have one vote. Then in 1955 so there would be no un- certainty as to the intent, the Joint Com- mittee recommended and the Congress amended the law to read: Eitch member of the Commission, includ- ing the Chairman. shall have equal respon- sibility and authority in all decisions and actions of the committee, and shall have full access to all information relating to the per- formance of his duties or responsibilities, and shall have one vote. Mr. President (Mr. INOUYE in the chair), the point I wish to make is that this Commission spends more than $2.5 billion a year in keening up the nuclear and thermonuclear posture of the Na- tion. It is a very responsible Commis- sion. There are some who believe, pos- sibly, that if we had one administrator as against the commission setup, as it is in the Some Administration, perhaps it might work more effectively, but I do not believe we need to debate that ques- tions this afternoon. What I am intending to do and should hope that this would be amenable to the thinking of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, is to bring it back to where the House had it. I do not say that all members of the Commission should be at level 2. I be- lieve that the Chairman should be at level 2, as the spokesman for the Com- mission but I would hope the Senator would revert back when I bring up my amendment to the bill. As it was re- ported by the House, other members of the Commission would be put in level 3 instead of level 4. I repeat, that it is not so much the matter of the money as it is the matter of the responsibility. If we are going to put the Chairman two grades above the other members of the Commission, we shall be downgrading the prestige and the responsibility of the other mem- bers. I do not believe that should be allowed because I believe that would do the whole program irreparable harm. Mr. JOHNSTON. I am glad to have these remarks from the Senator from Rhode Island, and shall be glad to look into them. Mr. PASTORE. That is the reason why I bring up the question now. I hope the Senator will take It up with his staff. There is another point I should like to make: and I hope he will consider this. too. I shall propose this amendment. And I hope that here again his thinking will be amenable to mine. Under the atomic energy law, we specify three Assistant General Managers. We say "no more than three." And the AEC under this statutory authority today has three As- sistant General Managers. But the Ian- allege of the bill, on page 127, line 5, is "Assistant General Manager, Atomic Energy Commission." That is in the singular. The only trouble is that we have three Assistant General Managers today at the equal salary level of $20,000. But the Senator provides for only one Assistant General Manager. What shall we do with the other two? We will have to downgrade them as well as others to the level of their division heads. We must treat these three General Managers alike. I hope the staff will look into that and make this correction as well. Mr. JOHNSTON. I shall be glad to look into that question. For the infor- mation of the Senator, we left it up to the Bureau of the Budget. The recom- mendation came from them. Mr. PASTORE. I do not know where they get their notions. The Joint Com- mittee on Atomic Energy watches this operation. It is not that we are trying to grab anythin 1 for anyone on the com- mittee. But it would throw the whole organization out of kilter. We have three Assistant General Managers op- erating on an equal footing. It is pro- posed to provide for only one. What shall we do with the other two? Bury them? ' The House made provision for it by leaving it to the Executive to fill an unspecified number of positions which the AEC understands would leave these three positions equal in level 5. In line 5. we could make "Manager" plural, and put "three" in parentheses. That would answer the question. I shall make those two amendments. I hope the staff will look into that. Mr. JOHNSTON. We shall be happy to look into it. We do not claim that the bill is perfect in every sense. But we did try to do as good a job as we could, working with the departments, and with the Bureau of the Budget, and with the staff of the House. Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield. I make no criticism of the Senator. He and I have fought shoulder to shoulder on some of these measures. At one time. I had the honor of serving on the committee. I know how assiduously the Senator has worked, and how vigorous he is in his presentations to the committee. Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate that. I discovered when the Senator was on the committee that he was one of the most active members. He did an excel- lent job there. The committee amended the House bill by imposing a ceiling of $22,945 on the schedule for employees on Senators' staffs and Senate committees. The House version sets a limitation of $24,- 500 on employees of House committees. The House bill further provides that the effective date of all increases in excess of $22.000 would be withheld until the effective date of the increase for Members of the Senate and House, January 3, 1965. The Committee de- cided that since, increases in excess of $22.000, particularly in the Executive salary schedule, are of vital and im- mediate importance, it would be unwise to postpone the date of their disburse- ment. Accordingly, the bill is amended to provide that amounts of salary in ex- cess of $22,000 per annum shall be post- poned until January 3, 1965, only in the case of officers and employees of the Senate and House. When this measure was considered on the floor of the House, Representative UDALL introduced an amendment, which was adopted, to provide that congres- sional pay increases would automatically go into effect in percentage amounts re- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 _Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15215 lated to pay increases enacted for em- ployees and officers of the executive branch. I believe that this provision is a good try at solving a hard problem, but it is my view that it would not accomp- lish its apparent purpose. The commit- tee was in agreement that this provision should be deleted from the bill. If the proposed arrangement pre- vailed, the Congress would in effect be acting to raise its own salaries whenever it approved executive-branch pay in- creases, and those who criticize Congress whenever congressional pay is con- sidered could once again raise their hue and cry, and the problem would be at hand once more. I believe further that if congressional and executive pay were tied together by statute, the result might be a slowing down of consideration of warranted pay increases for employees of the executive branch. Mr. President, a question has been raised with respect to the economic ef- fects of this measure. I would remind those who express this concern that the comparability principle requires the Federal Government as an employer to follow the moves of the national econ- omy?certainly not to lead it. The es- tablished procedure is for review and adjustment to determine whether salary scales have lagged too far behind those of the private economy as a whole, and to bring them up to business levels, but not above business levels, if a substan- tial lag has developed. Productivity in the Federal service has been on the rise, just as it has in other sectors of the economy. For example, in the Division of Disbursement of the Treasury, production increased 13 per- cent from 1960 to 1962, but the man- power utilized was actually reduced by 11 percent. In the Department of In- surance of the Veterans' Administration, manpower was reduced by 22 percent between 1960 and 1962 as the result of a 23-percent increase in productivity. It is my understanding that these re- ductions in manpower were accomplished through attrition and that the execu- tive branch is continuously taking action to assure that productivity increases con- tinue to be the rule. It has been stated that the average weekly earnings of Federal employees are approximately $22 higher than those of employees of the States. This compari- son, however, fails to take into account the differences in the employment cate- gories involved. The functions of State governments differ markedly from those of the Federal Government. The Fed- eral payrall at the present time includes thousands of some of the most highly trained individuals in the country. No State has a space program, for example; no State has a department of defense. Therefore, in my view it is erroneous to attempt to find a meaningful relation- ship between such entirely different types of groups as Federal and State employees. Economy and efficiency in the Federal service are dependent upon the quality of Federal management, and the mainte- nance of high-quality management can be assured only by salary levels that will permit competent managers to remain in the service. A recent editorial in the New York Times expressed the situation in this way: Those who oppose waste and extravagance in Government spending argue that raising the level of Federal salaries would be, un- justified and inequitable. Yet the biggest single cause of waste, in Government or in private industry, is inefficient management. The Nation has been fortunate that so many skilled people have been willing to accept the financial penalties involved in Govern- ment service. But with the pay scales and fringe benefits available to high caliber per- sonnel in private industry constantly rising, the Government will find it increasingly diffi- cult to attract and keep executives with the talent and the training required for formu- lating and carrying out policy. Mr. President, I now call to the atten- tion of the Senate the cost of H.R. 11049, as reported. I regret to advise by col- leagues that there are typographical errors in the chart displayed on page 4 of the committee report, but I am happy to point out that the erroneous figures over- state rather than understate the cost of the bill. The total cost figure for this salary bill?verified by the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commis- sion?is $556,836,341. The major reason for the difference in this cost estimate is that the net cost of title I should read $536,036,341 rather than the $543 million figure shown in the table. These esti- mates include the cost of Government contributions to the various fringe bene- fit programs Federal employees enjoy. This is less than $13 million in excess of the amount included in the President's budget for fiscal year 1965. I have been advised that in line with the administra- tion's policy this additional cost will be absorbed by employment attrition and efficient management of Federal agen- cies. Mr. President, I have a letter from the Bureau of the Budget which I wish to read at this time: BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1964. Hon. OWN D. JOHNSTON, Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ma. CHAIRMAN: As requested by you, the Bureau of the Budget has examined the cost estimates of HR. 11049, as reported to the Senate. When table 4 is corrected to take into account typographical errors in title I figures, the situation is substantially as follows: Disregarding minor adjustments which approximately cancel each other out, the aggregate costs of the Senate bill have been increased approximately $14 million over the President's maximum budget figures of 3544 million for the cost of pay legislation. The additional cost is attributable to the Senate committee's action in raising the middle grades of the Classification Act, Foreign Serv- ice, and Bureau of Medicine and Surgery schedules so that they will receive a 3-percent increase. The Bureau supports thit amend- ment in the interest of equity and closer com- parability between Government positions affected and the same level of work in private enterprise. We must point out, however, that the President's budget allowance was a maximum allowance. The fiscal year 1965 cost of the bill must be held within that figure. Ac- cordingly, it will be necessary through attri- tion, nonfilling of vacancies, and other ac- tions to increase the amount of absorption required of the agencies so as to cover the excess costs. Subject to the foregoing understanding, the costs of the Senate version of HR. 11049 are without objection. Sincerely, ELMER B. STAATS, Acting Director. Mr. President, I strongly believe that Americans everywhere will support the provisions of this measure as represnt- ing equity and fairplay. I urge the Senate's favorable consideration of H.R. 11049. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I wish to address myself very briefly to the pending bill. First, I commend the dis- tinguished chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] on the manner in which he conducted long and thorough hearings on the proposed legislation. I also corn- mend the members of the staff for their valuable assistance in writing the pend- ing bill. H.R. 11049 as it passed the House was a bill of six titles. The very nature of the proposed legislation required thor- ough study. I saw with a great deal of pride and frankness that every member of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee gave long and sincere study to this legislation. They were determined that if a bill were to be reported, it should be reported after each member of the committee had a chance to study and discuss all titles of the bill. The Senate committee made some changes in the House bill. We believe they were changes which make for better legislation and eliminate certain inequi- ties. The Senate bill gives a small increase over the House bill in four middle grades in the general schedule. This change more nearly reaches comparability and will affect grades 9, 10, 11, and 12. Many of these employees are managers and engineers. The percentage of increase will run about 3 percent. I believe an inequity was removed from the postal field service by permitting an annual step increase through step 7 from level 7 up. Annual step increases were permitted in previous bills for the first six levels through step 7. These are only two changes which it seems to me are significant in that they help the employees in the middle or lower brackets. Some salaries were reduced in the executive pay schedule and a few were raised a little. It is very difficult in a bill like this to establish a schedule entirely equitable in all instances. Mr. President, I want to assure all my colleagues that a lot of study and effort was put forth to bring out a bill that was as nearly equitable as possible. It is now up to the Senate to cast its decision. I shall support the bill, H.R. 11049 as reported by the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Mr. President, one of our colleagues, a very valuable member of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R0005000500Q1-9 - -15216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ,1" Illy 1 ice, is unable to be present today. He has left with me a statement in which he strongly urges passage of the measure. I have reference to the senior Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FUNGI. I ask unani- mous consent that his statement be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STATEMENT EY SENATOR FONG H.R. 11049, the measure presently before this body is one which I fully support. As a member of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, I know from first experi- ence the hard work and long hours the com- mittee spent to bring to the floor of the Senate as equitable a bill as was possible. I commend the committee chairman. Sen- ator Oust D. Joitsisron. and the minority leader on the committee, Senator FRANK CARLSON, for their effective leadership and patience in hammering out a bill acceptable to all members of the committee. It is only fair and equitable that the Congress pass the Federal Salary Act of 1964 at this time. In fact, it is overdue. In the Federal Pay Reform Act of 1952 the Congress wrote into law for the first time what is commonly referred to as the com- parability principle. This provision meant that Federal salaries should be comparable to those being paid for similar work in pri- vate industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics was directed to make annual review of private industry salaries and report to the President its find- ings and comparison of Federal salaries 'with those prevailing in private industry. H.R. 11049 is the first step since the com- parability principle was written into law in which Congress is asked to keep faith with the provision it approved in 1962. The committee held extensive hearings over a period of approximately 8 months on Federal pay. Upon completion of the hear- ings the committee met in executive sessions for over 2 months in an effort to write a fair. equitable, and just salary act. H.R. 11049 covers the full scope of Federal salaries?from executive to clerks. It is a comprehensive measure which, while bring- ing most Federal salaries into comparability with those in private industry, also corrects certain inequities in the Federal pay struc- ture. The average salary increase for Federal em- ployees under the Classification Act is ap- proximately 4.2 percent and under the postal held schedule 5.6 percent. In the higher pay levels the committee ad- mits that comparability cannot be followed. or d in other levels the Federal pay scale con- tinues to lag 2 or 3 years behind private in- dustry pay. However, HR. 11049 is as equi- table a bill as can now be written. It is a good bill and will assist greatly in retaining highly trained and qualified personnel in the Federal service. strongly urge the passage of this measure. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President. I have wanted to vote in favor of the pending bill to increase the pay of Federal em- ployees. I have consistently supported such measures in the past, and hope to do so agairf in the future. If it were possible to evaluate this bill on its own merits alone, without regard to-any other consideration, I would approve it and vote for it. But it is not possible, in my judgment, to separate this bill from other action that Congress has taken in this session. Just a few months ago, we enacted the largest income tax cut in history. This was done to combat unemployment, stimulate investment, and enhance the rate of our economic growth. The tax reduction, which had the effect of in- creasing everybody's take-home pay, was carefully designed to promote the growth of production and employment, so that Federal revenues, collected at a lower rate from an expanding economic base, might rise to balance the budget and eliminate further deficit spending. On the basis of the evidence already in, we have reason to believe that the ob- jective we sought, in enacting the tax cut, is achievable, providing we hold the line on Federal spending and avoid fur- ther cuts in tax revenue. We pledged ourselves to do both, when we cut the income tax a few short months ago. I believe we should keep that pledge today. Last week, I kept the pledge by voting against all reductions of Federal excise taxes, even though I know these taxes to be a nuisance and harassment to the small businesses of my State. I have asked the merchants of Idaho, who so stronely desire the repeal of these excise taxes, to wait until a balanced budget is in sight. This year the deficit may run to $9 billion: next year. if we hold the line, it should be much reduced. In these nrosperous times, we have to strive to restore a balanced budget, for we can- not continue indefinitely to sriand more money than we take in. I know that my stand against the re- peal of the excise taxes. at the present time, was not popular with the business- men of Idaho, and I fully appreciate that my vote against this bill will not be popular with Government employees, in- cluding the postal workers, who need the PRY raise most, and who have been my special friends. But I cannot, in good conscience, ap- ply one standard to some of the people I represent, while applying a different standard to others. With the Govern- ment operating so much in the red, this is not the proper time to vote, either for further reduction in revenue, or for further increases in pay. I hope that all those affected may understand that I take this position for the purpose of upholding fiscal respon- sibility. If we keep our pledge to hold the line, the day will soon come when Federal salaries can be adjusted, and Federal excise taxes can be repealed, without adding to the debt, or enlarging its burden upon future generations. Then is the time to do it. T intend, of course, to apply to myself, the same standard I am asking all the people I represent to accept for them- selves. Accordingly, I shall vote to strike the proposed congressional pay raise from the bill, and I shall vote against the bill itself. Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President. it is with some reluctance that I shall vote against this pending bill. My firm be- lief in the principle of comparability be- tween salaries paid civil servants and those paid in private industry is evi- denced by my previous votes on Federal pay legislation. I would be pleased to vote now for salary increases for the lower and mid- dle brackets of the classified service and for postal workers. I cannot, however, support this legislation primarily because it contains large increases for the Mem- bers of the Congress and, secondarily, because of the unfairly generous treat- ment of the higher grades in the classi- fied service. It is true, Mi. President, that congres- sional salaries were last reviewed a dec- ade ago and perhaps a case can be made for some adjusiment. During the period from 1945 to 1960 there were seven across-the-board raises which averaegcl out annually 4.1 percent for classified arid 4.9 percent for postal employees. That is a total percentage raise of 61.5 percent for the classified employees and 73.5 percent for postal. Considering only the period since 1955 when the last c pngressional increase was made in Members' salaries, the percent- age raise for postal and classified ag- gregated 51 percent. But such reason- ing completely overlooks the fact that the people of this country, in the very week that the Congress has been forced to raise the legal limit of the national debt, deserve better than to have that Congress vote for ourselves a large sal- ary increase. They deserve leadership by example. This is the time for re- straint, not for new and greater expend- itures. The cost of this bill would exceed half a billion dollars. It tends to be infla- tionary. Both in the interests of econ- omy and in stemming the upward spiral of living costs, it should be rejected. This administration professes to be economy minded, yet we are continually confronted with new spending proposals, each of which contains the elements for expansion in future years. Instead of approving such measures, now is the time to reverse the trend. Yet the pressure by the administration for more and more such spending schemes continues un- abated. As the able Se nator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD) pointed out in his recent letter to President Johnson, despite claims by the administration that stringent personnel ceilings have bean imposed, the facts are the Federal payroll is running at the rate of $16 billion a veer, and going up; Fed- eral employment is still approximately 2.5 million. This is well above the 2,352,- 000 jobs existing when President Eisen- hower left office, after trimming 201,000 jobs from the payroll in his 8-year administration. The Johnson administration, despite its economy claims, continues to push for more and more employees. In his fiscal 1965 budget, the President asked for new positions in 13 out of 24 major agencies. The President must be willing to exer- cise restraint in his own requests both for spending and for new jobs. Then he will have earned the right to ask the people of America to reward those who make this Government operate. Justification for hieher salaries for the Congress. the too grades in the classified service, and for appointive positions is based on the art ument that it is difficult to attract and maintain competent men and women in high Government posts when industry and business pay much better salaries. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15217 Mr. President, the motivation for Gov- ernment service at these levels must be based on more than dollars and cents. A Cabinet officer undeniably is paid less than a business executive with compa- rable responsibilities. But, we could never expect to pay the Secretary of Labor, for example, what the giant un- ions pay their presidents, or to match the salary of the Secretary of Defense with the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar sal- ary of a huge manufacturing firm. It is reported that Gov. LeRoy Collins is leaving a $75,000 a year job as presi- dent of the National Association of Broadcasters to accept a Government post paying less than a third of that. These people come to Government posi- tions because they are motivated by a desire to serve, not because of the salary, The same is true of the Members of the Congress. It is unfortunate, Mr. President, that we are not allowed to consider a bill giv- ing increases to those Government work- ers who unquestionably deserve them. On balance, however, the bad in this bill outweighs the good; accordingly, I shall vote against it. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, in my opinion, we have a solemn obliga- tion to act favorably on this very com- mendable and very necessary pay bill. When the Senate passed the Salary Reform Act of 1962, only ;three Members of this body voted against it. That measure committed Congress to the very sensible and reasonable proposition that Federal employees and postal employees should be relieved of the necessity of in- cessantly petitioning Congress to keep them abreast of the Nation's economic parade. The act, as it was passed, in- troduced into the Federal pay structure, for the first time, a scientific and dig- nified apparatus for adjusting Federal salaries whenever they fell significantly behind the accepted norm for similar jobs in private industry. The late President Kennedy, using the apparatus we had approved, told us, on April 29 of last year, that postal em- ployees' pay and Federal employees' pay had fallen considerably below accepted standards in private industry. We were morally committed to do something about that situation; but today, 14 months later, we are getting our first op- portunity to live up to our obligation. It was for this reason, Mr. President, that in committee I offered the amend- ment which was agreed to, and which will make this pay raise for the postal employees and the classified employees effective on July 1, 1964, instead of in the first pay period following the enactment of the legislation. The fine people who man our postal service and our classified service have waited long enough for their compara- bility pay raise. With each passing month, they have been slipping behind the economic parade. When we pass this bill today?and I feel confident that we shall?there will have to be a conference, and then consideration by both Houses of the agreement reached by the con- No. 132-25 ferees. All this adds up to more and more delay. In my opinion, it would be unconscionable for us to ask the Federal workers and the postal workers to take a further financial beating, just because in our legislative processes we have been somewhat dilatory. Mr. President, I doubt that there can be any serious argument against the pay raises which this bill provides for Federal employees in the upper echelons of the service. All responsible authorities, both those in government and those in pri- vate industry, agree that these positions must be more attractively compensated. The U.S. Government is the largest and the most important business opera- tion in the world. The government is filled with positions calling for great in- telligence, great judgment, great learn- ing, and great moral courage. The de- cisions such men must make, as all of us know, often affect millions upon mil- lions of human beings, both at home and abroad. Their decisions involve enor- mous sums of the taxpayers' money. They could conceivably involve the peace and security of the free world. We simply cannot continue to com- pensate such positions with a wage that would be considered, in private industry, inadequate for an office manager or an assistant to a very junior vice president. President Johnson has pointed out that we must prevent our Federal pay structure from becoming one that will repel the talented and will attract only the mediocre. We are perilously close to that point now. I think it is'a miracle that we have been able to attract and retain the high caliber of men and wom- en that we have today in the Govern- ment. But already the signs are becom- ing all too apparent that too many of the best and most talented people in the Government are finding the Federal service a luxury in which?in fairness to their families?they cannot continue to indulge. We are losing topflight people every day; and the only way we can stop this expensive exodus of talent is to make the positions more attractive than they are now. If our huge and complex Federal Gov- ernment is ever dominated by second- rate managers, we shall then be in se- rious danger of becoming a second-rate country. We must repair the flaws in the pres- ent pay structure, and we must plan boldly for the future. This bill does both. It is a good bill. Under the able lead- ership of our chairman, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], our committee deliberated over its provisions in depth and at length. When we ap- proved it, we did so without a dissenting voice or vote. The bill deserves the same enthusiastic' support from the Senate as a whole; and I sincerely hope and trust that it will receive it. It is our moral duty to pass this bill; and it is a matter of enlightened self- interest to provide for a Federal pay structure that will attract and retain the best available talent in the land. FREE ENTRY OF CERTAIN MASS SPECTROMETERS The PRESIDING OloriCER laid be- fore the Senate a message from the House of Representatives announcing its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the bill '(H.R. 4364) to provide for the free entry of one mass spectrom- eter for the use of Oregon State Uni- versity and one mass spectrometer for the use of Wayne State University, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendment and agree to the request of the House for a conference, and that the Chair ap- point the conferees on the part of the Senate. The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. BYRD of Virginia, Mr. LONG of Louisiana, Mr. SMATHERS, Mr. WILLIAMS Of Delaware, and Mr. CURTIS conferees on the part of the Senate. MEAT IMPORTS Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the Sen- ate Finance Committee has just ap- proved the Mansfield amendment, No. 465, to limit beet imports. The commit- tee approved this amendment with a modification offered by Senator CURTIS. Under the amendment adopted, imports of fresh, chilled, or frozen beef after 1964 will be limited to 674 million pounds an- nually. This is generally the average annual amount which was imported in the 5-year period,ending with December 31, 1963. Restrictions were also placed on importation of mutton, lamb, and cer- tain prepared meats, on a pound basis. The amendment provides for increases in the stated quotas whenever the aver- age price in the United States for that meat equals or exceeds 90 percent of the average parity price provided the semi- annual production of cattle in this coun- try exceeds 7,352 million pounds. The amendment was adopted to H.R. 1839, a House-passed bill relating to the importation of wild birds and wild animals. The bill will be reported to the Senate tomorrow. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SAL- ARY REFORM ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I shall call up my amendment. Before I do so, I point out that I am very anxious to obtain the yeas and nays on the amendment. I talked with the majority leader about it. At the present time it appears that there are not enough Sen- ators in the Chamber to order the yeas and nays. So I ask unanimous consent that there may be a quorum call with Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R0005000500.0-9 ? 15218 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July the understanding that I shall not lose my right to the floor, for the purpose of bringing a sufficient number of Senators to the Chamber so that I may ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin wish first to of- fer his amendment? Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that my amend- ment be called up and that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. PROXMIRE'S amendment I No. 1084) is as follows: Beginning with line 23 on page 108, strike out over through line 8 on page 115. Redesignate titles III and IV as II and III. respectively; redesignate sections 301 to 310 as 201 to 210. respectively; and redesignate sections 401 to 403 as 301 to 303. respectively. Beginning with line 4 on page 106. strike out over through line 2 on page 107 and In- sert in lieu thereof the following: "TITLE IV?EFFECTIVE DATE -Ssc. 401. This Act and the increases In compensation made by this Act shall become effective on July 1, 1904." Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I be- lieve there are enough Senators present to have the yeas and nays ordered. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendments. Mr. MILLER.. Mr. President. a par- liamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. MILLER. If the yeas and nays are ordered on the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, will it be open to amendment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be open to amendment, but not modifica- tion. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It would delete from the bill, title II, "Federal Legisla- tive Salaries." It would eliminate that part of the bill which provides pay in- creases in salaries for Members of the House and the Senate and employees of the House and the Senate. A congressional pay increase is un- justified. When I say "unjustified." I mean exactly that word. It has not been justified in the hearings or in the Ran- dall report. During the hearings there was a little discussion of congressional pay, but very little, indeed. I challenge any Senator to go through the hearings and find?the only one I could find was by the distin- guished minority leader, Senator DIRK- sEN?a statement in favor of a congres- sional pay increase. And even this elo- quent statement is an undocumented generalized approval. The Randall re- port confines its justification to execu- tive salaries. I think a strong case was made, and a persuasive case so far as I am concerned, for an increase in salaries of executive and judicial employees. The testimony is voluminous and the comparability criterion that was introduced Is most convincing. The fact is that this Gov- ernment cannot hire people to serve in responsible and onerous jobs of our Fed- eral Government if they are not paid on a basis comparable to what they can earn in private employment. Since there last was a substantial in- crease for members of the Cabinet and judicial officials, there has been a great increase in salaries all over the country. but particularly in the highest salaries. I feel very strongly that the need for a pay increase in those categories has been fully justified. It has been fully documented. It would be false economy If Congress should refuse to permit the Federal Government to pay sufficient salaries to enable the Government to hire some of the best administrators in the Nation to serve in responsible and im- portant positions, in which persons could exercise their judgment in securing effi- ciency and economy. But the same argument cannot be made for Members of the House and the Senate. This is a most difficult issue to debate, because we are all involved. It is difficult for us to argue against a pay increase for Members of the House and Senate. I cannot think of anything that would make one lose popularity among one's colleagues more than to argue against a pay raise for them. In fact. I am hav- ing trouble with my wife on this issue. I am sure that those who vote for my amendment will find they may have trouble with their wives, children, or other members of their family who dis- agree. So it is not easy to make this argument. But the fact is that a pay Increase is not necessary for Members of the House and Senate. A Member of the House or Senate now receives $22,500 a year. That pay Is three times as high as the income of the average American family. Only 1 family out of 50 in the Nation receives as much as $22.500 or more. When one is paid this handsomely in any line of work, really the only justifi- cation to pay more is that we must pay more if we are to get the people to do the job. That is the justification for the in- crease for Cabinet officers and judicial officers. But the same justification can- not be made for Members of the House and Senate. We all recognize the great expense in- volved in running as a candidate for the House or Senate. Why? Because there is great competition for the job. Candi- dates for the House and their supporters are willing to contribute, typically, $25.000 or $30,000, for a single campaign. In many States candidates for the Sen- ate will conduct campaigns that cost $250.000 or $300,000, and some Senate campaigns cost $1 million or more. On the basis of competence and effi- ciency, I should say that the services of virtually all Members of the Senate could be valued abstractly at $50,000 or $100,- 000, or even more. Most Members of this body could make more on the outside than we make here. We have chosen to serve in this body because we like it, be- cause the nonrnonetary rewards are far greater than the monetary rewards. There is no question of the satisfaction that comes from serving in the Senate, In being one's own boss. in not being an administrator appointed by somebode else, of being able to work in accordanca with one's own conscience, of, in effect, choosing mie'i own field, and devotin; time and attention to it and meeting the great challenges that face our country in being a top American policymaker. That Is the real compensation. Whether tha salary were increased to $30.000, or $50,000, or $1(0,000, the incentive to run as a candidate for the Senate or the House in my judgment, would not be sub. stantially increased. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sen ator from Ohio. Mr. LAUSCHE. I have a tabulation in my hand showing the pay increases that were granted generally to the Fed- eral employee.; beginning in 1955. If am incorrect in this statement, those who are experts in the matter may chal- lenge me. In 1955 a 7.5-percent pay raise wa:; granted to the general employees. In 1958 a 10-percent increase was granted. In 1960 a 7.7 percent increase was granted. In 1962 a 5.5-percent increase was granted, effective in 1962, with the pro-? vision for a 4.4-percent increase effective in 1964. These figures show that since 1955 the general employees have received, in the aggregate, pay raises amounting to 35.1 percent. I come now to the pay raises granted tc Members of Congress. In 1955 the pay was raised from $12,-. 500 to $22,500. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, wil:. the Senator yield? Mr. LAUSCHE. The salary was $12,- 500, with an allowance of $2,500 for ex- penses, but the salary was $12,500, ac- cording to the report submitted. Mr. MONRONEY. If the Senator wil: yield for a correction, the LegislativE Reorganization Act of 1946 establishe a $15,000 salary for Members of the Senate and House. At that time, in 1946, Members were enjoying a salary of $10,000 plus a $2,500 allowance When the Legislative Reorganizatior Act was passed a $15,000 salary super- seded the old salary, and that was the salary until the time it was raised tc $22,500 in 1955 Mr. LAUSCHE. That is, it was $12,- 500, with $2,500 for an allowance. What does the Senator from Oklahoma say it was then? Mr. MONRONEY. Then it was $15,- 000 salary, and the expense allowance ceased to exist. Mr. LAUSCHE. In 1955 the salary was $15,000. Then it was raised to $22,- 500. That is a 50-percent increase. It is now proposed to raise it from $22.500 to $30,000. That is a 33'-percent pay raise over 1955. If we take the $15,000 pay in 1955 and compare it with the $30,000 in 1964, the pay raise is 100 per- cent. How can we go back to the tax- payers and voters and say that we have granted, in the aggregate, a 35-percent pay raise to the general employees, but have granted to ourselves a 100-percent Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE 15219 pay raise? I should like to ask the Sen- ator from Wisconsin how he can answer conscientiously anyone who challenges him on the basis that he gave a 100-per- cent pay raise in 9 years to himself and gave the little postal carrier and the janitor and the washwoman 35 per- cent in the aggregate? Mr. PROXMIRE. In general, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Ohio. But I do think that on the basis of the Randall report and on the basis of the hearings, it is possible to justify a substantial increase for members of the Cabinet and some of the other lead- ing administrators in our Government, on the comparability basis. It is a mat- ter of judgment, but I think the Randall people were efficient. I think they were honest. I think they were objective. I believe that when they said that if we wish to have the kind of people who are competent to do important admin- istrative and judicial work, it is neces- sary to pay them approximately, they were right. I accept that. Some of the increases are very sub- stantial. I reject the principle that it is not possible to increase the salary of a Cabinet officer, and the salary of the other people in the Federal Government with responsible jobs, without at the same time increasing the salaries of the Members of Congress by the same amount. The jobs are entirely different. There is no comparability. No member of a State legislature gets anything like the salary that we do. It is true that when we get into the area of administrative jobs, we find that in California and in Illinois and in Pennsylvania, for example, in some cases 90 or 100 people get more than $25,000 a year. They are administrators. Those States have found that the only way they can get competent people is to pay them an additional sum. For ourselves, I do not find any justi- fication for the proposed increase. Mr. LAUSCHE. I cannot find any justification for the disparity that exists between the aggregate pay raises that were granted in 10 years to the general employees, amounting to 35 percent, while we are granting to ourselves an Increase of 100 percent. We are in no different category so far as want and need are concerned. Mr. PROXMIRE. On the basis of want and need there is no question about it. I feel strongly, and I have felt very strongly for years, that the rank and file Federal employees deserve better pay. We can justify it on the basis of justice and need, and that it is necessary to do it in order to get people who fill com- parable jobs outside the Government. But the only way we can justify paying more than $20,000 a year is that a pay increase is necessary to pay that amount to attract qualified officials. The argu- ment can be made, on the basis of the Randall report, that it is necessary to pay the additional amount to get the people who are competent to handle the important sub-Cabinet and Cabinet jobs. That argument cannot be made with regard to Members of Congress. If I run for reelection this fall I will have a very strong opponent, and most Members of Congress will also. All of us are well aware of the fact that there is plenty of competition when it comes to these jobs we hold. Mr. LAUSCHE. If the Senator lost all of his staff members, does he think there would be others available in Wis- consin to work for him on the basis of the pay that he is now paying his staff members, without an increase? Mr. PROXMIRE. I believe so. Mr. LAUSCHE. I believe that is true in my case, too. I believe every Mem- ber of Congress has 10 applicants for every job he has available in his office. I should like to ask the Senator one more question. In addition to this pay raise of 100 percent in 10 years, I have before me a tabulation of what my retirement pay and the retirement pay of the Sen- ator from Wisconsin will be. He has served 6 years. At the end of 6 years it is $281.25 a month. With the increase in the salary from $22,500 to $30,000, the retirement pay would be $406.25. That is for that 6 years' service. At the end of 12 years, on the basis of $30,000, my re- tirement pay would be $30,000 times 21/2 Percent times 12 years, It would be $6,000 a year. The point I am trying to make is this: Is it not a fact that in addition to the increase in pay, we would eventually become the beneficiaries of a liberal increase in our retirement pay? Mr. PROXMIRE. There is no ques- tion about that. The Senator is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. We would become the beneficiaries of a liberal increase in re- tirement pay without having to pay any- thing into the retirement fund to sup- port that increased pay. Mr. PROXMIRE. There would be some increase, but nothing in proportion to what we would get out. Mr. LAUSCHE. We would pay in nothing on the basis of past service. We would pay on the basis of future service. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, is it not a fact that we pay in about 71/2 percent? Mr. CARLSON. Yes. Mr. LAUSCHE. But only on the fu- ture salary. We do not pay it on the past salary. Mr. MORTON. The Senator has found a different way of doing it. Ap- parently he has a new way of doing it, because I have been paying into the fund for 18 years. Mr. LAUSCHE. Let us make this point clear. A person who goes to work for the Federal Government at $5,000 a year and pays in 21/2 percent on his $5,000, and finally works himself up to a $15,000 salary, has his retirement cal- culated on the $15,000, on which he did not, through his entire service, pay 21/2 percent, and not on the basis of the $5,000. Mr. MORTON. That does not apply alone to Members of Congress. That applies to the entire Federal pension plan. It is figured on the basis of the average of the top 5 years. Mr. LAUSCHE. That is why the Fed- eral pension fund is in the red in the sum of $39 billion. Mr. MORTON. If that is so, let us re- write the law. Mr. MONRONEY. It is not $39 bil- lion. Mr. LAUSCHE. It is underfunded in the sum of $39 billion, Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kansas, for a clarification of this point. Mr. CARLSON. I do not want to get into an argument between the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Wis- consin. However, readers of the RECORD should have the facts stated accurately. The Senator is really a little low in some of his figures. Since 1955 there have been six salary increases for Federal employees, includ- ing increases of 7.5 percent in 1955, 8.1 percent in 1956, 10 percent in 1958, 7.7 percent in 1960, 5.5 percent in 1962, and 4.1 percent that became effective on Jan- uary 1, 1964. That aggregates more than 51 percent. The distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAusenE] has mentioned congres- sional increases in salary. The salary in January 1955 was $22,500. There- fore, a salary of $30,000 would not be a 100-percent increase; it would be an in- crease of 33 percent. Mr. LAUSCHE. No; I stated that clearly. If it was $15,000 in 1955, and would become $30,000 in 1964- -Mr. CARLSON. It was $15,000 in 1946. Mr. MONRONEY. The salary of Members of Congress was changed in Mardi 1955. It is necessary to compare the salaries correctly by using the same base period; for example, the increase in 1955. It will be found that about the same amount of increase, about 35 per- cent, has been given to all Federal work- ers regularly throughout the 10-year period. Under the committee's proposal, Mem- bers of Congress would receive an in- crease of about 33 percent effective Jan- uary 1, 1965. Members of Congress did not receive an increase in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, or 1960. Their salaries were in- creased in 1955. So let us keep the figures straight. The percentage is ap- proximately concomitant between the starting figure in 1955 and the amounts by which Federal workers in the civil service have been raised during the in- tervening period and what is now pro- posed to be effective in 1965, a 33-percent increase. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sen- ator from Arkansas. Mr. McCLELLAN. Do I correctly understand that the Senator's amend- ment is designed to correct all the in- equities in the bill? Mr. PROXMIRE. I am sure there are many inequities in the bill at which the amendments of other Senators are aimed. My amendment is aimed at the title dealing with Federal legislative sal- aries, title II. Mr. McCLELLAN. Are we to assume that if the Senator's amendment were adopted, he would favor the bill? Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes. Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not under- stand the Senator's reasoning. Mr. PROXMIRE. I shall favor the bill whether my amendment is adopted or not. I hope the amendment will be Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 15220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE adopted; but I shall vote for the bill anyway, because I think it is so badly needed to get and retain the kind of efficient people needed in the Federal Government. I am for the bill. Mr. McCLELLAN. I disagree with the Senator so far as he says it is necessary to raise salaries in order to get efficient Personnel for the Government. People are running over themselves wanting to get into the Government, just as they are running over themselves trying to be elected to Congress. I do not disagree with the Senator in the main; but if his amendment is adopted and the bill is passed, he will be voting a pay raise for his admiinstrative assistant to a limit that is higher than the Senator's own salary now. Mr. PROXMIRE. No; that is not cor- rect. I would delete all of title II, which affects administrative assistants and all ether Senate employees. Mr. McCLELLAN. I though the Sen- e tor said his amendment affected only Senators and Representatives. Mr. PROXMIRE. / was misunder- stood. The amendment affects not only Members of the Senate and House; it would not permit an increase in pay for congressional staff members and would not permit increases in pay for Mem- bers of the House and Senate. The Senator from Arkansas makes a good point. I think it is necessary to keep salaries in line. Mr. McCLELLAN. The salaries of members of the Senate staff, under the bill, would be higher than salaries Sen- ators now receive. Mr. PROXMIRE. But my amend- ment would prevent that. Mr. McCLELLAN. Would the Sena- tor's .amendment apply to all Members of Congress? Mr. PROXMERE. It applies to the salaries of Members of the Senate and House and to all other legislative sal- aries. All legislative salary increases are deleted by my amendment. Mr. McCLELLAN. Under the Sena- tor's amendment, would the members of the staff, from the lowest to the highest paid. receive no increase at all, whether in the House or the Senate? Mr. PROXMIRE. The answer is no. No increase. Of course, there is the pos- sibility that a Senator who now has ex- tra clerk hire available might increase lis staff members, but my amendment would not by itself provide an increase Pi salaries for employees of the legislative branch. Mr. McCLELLAN. Would the Sena- tor's amendment allow the $7.500 in- crease for Cabinet officers? Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes. Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President. will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. PROUTY. As I understand. the Senator's amendment would preclude any increase in salaries for Members of the House and Senate. Mr. PROXMIRE. Members of the Senate and House and the staff. Mr. PROUTY. I am sympathetic to- card the Senator's position with respect to congressional salaries; but I believe i-onie justification can be made for a rea- sonable increase in staff salaries. So at the proper time I shall offer a substitute which would eliminate the provision for an increase in congressional salaries; and if that should be adopted. I shall offer a second amendment, which would per- mit an increase in staff salaries up to $22,000. In other words, the staff would not receive more than Members of Con- gress receive. Mr. MeCLELLAN. It would be $500 less. Mr. PROUTY. That would be up to the Senate to determine. Mr. PROXMIRE. / believe the com- mittee did its work carefully, as it has al- ways done in the past, to try to bring the salary payments, not only of the staff of other ernolos-ees of the Senate, in proper relationship to what Senators receive. So we either must, cut out the whole thing or, in effect, cut out nothing. Otherwise there will be a large number of employees of the Senate and of Senators who will receive, under the amendment the Sen- ator from Vermont proposes to offer, more than Senators receive. Mr. PROUTY. I wish to ask the Sen- ator another question. A Senator does not have to grant an increase to his staff members if he does not wish to do so, does he? Mr. PROXMIRE. No; but there are doorkeepers and others, who are not re- sponsible to any one Senator, who would be paid more than Senators are paid un- der the Prouty amendment. Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President. will the Senator from Wisconsin yield. Mr. PROXMIRE I yield. Mr. TALMADGE. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for offering his amendment. I have been a Member of the Senate for a rela- tively short time-7'. , years. In that time. I have consistently supported and voted for legislation designed to update the pay scale and fringe benefits of our Federal workers to insure them a stand- ard of living equal to and commensurate with their counterparts in private in- dustry. Specifically, since 1957. Congress has passed three pay-increase bills which have increased the pay of Federal em- ployees by a total of 271. percent. These Included a 10-percent increase in 1958, a 7'l-percent Increase in 1960, and a 10- percent increase in 1962, a part of which took effect only on January 1 of this year. We are now informed that the pay of Federal workers is again lagging behind that of those in private life who are doing similar work and. therefore, are being called upon to further increase these salaries. In addition to classified and postal employees, the bill includes in- creases, some as high as 33 percent. for Members of Congress and leading mem- bers of the executive branch and the judiciary, including members of the Su- preme Court. My inquiry has verified the fact that the bill would increase the salaries of the pages sitting in front of us to $5,004 a year. I do not see how anyone can jus- tify that. The bill comes to us in revised form after a previous bill, which provided even larger increases for high officials in the July 1 executive branch and Members of Ccn- gress, was defeated in the House earlier this year. I support the principle of compare): il- ity between Government and indus;xy and of paying a salary which is sufficient to attract qualified people to serve the Federal Government. I believe that the bill, in providing a one-third increase :or Members of Congress, with similar in- creases for the executive and judicial branches, goes far beyond that point and, in fact, is completely unreasonable in this respect. I point out that in addition to cur salaries, the Government contributes percent toward our retirement benefits, which is a fringe benefit vested after only 5 years of service. The able Senator from Ohio [Mr. Lauscnsl, hi an earher colloquy with the Senator from Wiscon- sin, stated in detail how beneficial this is to all Members of Congress. If the sal- ary of $30,060 is retained in the bill as it came to the Senate, 7 a, percent of that, in addition, will be contributed by the taxpayers of the country toward our ie- tirement benefits, and it will be vested after only 5 years of service. Only last week, this body voted to in- crease the national debt ceiling to an all-time high of $324 billion. In the past 34 years, we have balanced the Federal budget only about six timas. It has been unbalanced 28 times. ? Al- though the exact figures will not be available for some time yet, I am in- formed that the fiscal year which ended at midnight last night, will probably show a defieit in excess of $8 billion, 800 million. It is estimated to be ap- proximately $6,600 million for this fiscal year. In the face of this kind of national financial picture, I cannot in good con- science vote for a bill which, amoag other things would increase my own sal- ary by one-third, and in its present form would cost the taxpayers over one-half billion dollars annually. I hope that the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from Wa- consin, to strike the exorbitant increases for Members of Congress and to briag into reasonable proportion the increaces for other Federal officials, will be adopted. In the event that it is. I shall be glad to support the bill. In the event that it is not approved, I cannot vote for it. I thank the Senator from Wis.comin for yielding to me. Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Sena- tor from Georgia very much. Before I yield to the Senator frcm Kansas [Mr Cattes0N1, let me say that, the point the Senator from Georpia makes about the effect of this propoc al on responsible fiscal policy is particularly important. Not only have we the prob- lem of the national debt, but only a few months ago we voted the biggest tax cut in the history of the Nation, a tax cut which cer tainly will deepen the deficit for this year. at least. There is no ques- tion about that. The tax cut not only benefited maay Americans, but it also benefited Members of Congress. It benefited Members of Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196.4 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15221 Congress far more handsomely than most Americans. My staff people have computed that a typical Member of Congress, if he has no outside income, received the benefit from the tax cut of increased take-home pay of $18 a week, or $900 a year, which is a far greater increase than the overwhelm- ing majority of the American people re- ceived from the tax cut. It will be remembered that when we voted for the tax cut, it was made ex- plicit that we would do everything we could to cut down Federal spending. How in the world can we honestly say we are working to keep Federal spending down if we vote ourselves a 331/3 increase in salary? There might be a time for this kind of increase later, but not this year, not in a year when we have already voted a heavy tax cut, when we have deliberately planned to unbalance the budget to the extent that we have. I am now glad to yield to the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON]. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I wish to participate in this debate, because the salaries of the very young men who serve us on both sides of the aisle have been mentioned. These boys receive $387.11 a month. They serve during the sessions of the Congress. They serve an entire year at their present salary-12 months. At $387.11 a month, the total for the year is $4,655.40. This bill would increase the salaries of these young men, following the pattern of other salaries, by $29 a month. It is true that it would total a little over $5,000?$5,004.60. The record should be made clear that these boys are serving by the month. If the session lasts 12 months, that is the salary they would get. Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sena- tor from New York. Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the amend- ment of the Senator from Wisconsin. There should be no question in the minds of the American people and those of us in this body on the justification of the proposed pay raises for the postal work- ers and the classified employees. Whether based on merit, comparability, or cost-of-living increases, Federal em- ployees who are legally denied the oppor- tunity to use the bargaining techniques of their counterparts in private industry, deserve fair and thorough consideration at this bargaining table. We should be directing our attention to this question andAhis alone. Inclusion of the congressional pay raise in this bill is totally inappropriate. Any such increase for Congress involves entirely different considerations and should be voted up or down on its own merits. If there is no justification for an increase at this time, then it certainly should not ride through on the legislative coattails of merited increases. Entirely apart from the merits of whether we are entitled to more money or not, the fact is that there is virtually nothing in the hearings record dealing with the question of congressional, pay raises. Whether the figure of a 331/3-per- cent increase was picked out of thin air and whether it may be justified or not is unknown. Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is cor- rect. That is exactly what this congres- sional raise is?legislative coattail riding. Look at the hearings. There is virtu- ally no justification for a congressional increase. There is some justification for an increase in the executive and judicial departments. Many prominent organi- zations and persons have appeared and documented the case for executive and judicial pay increases. However, there is no justification for the increase for Members of Congress. It has been ar- gued that if we increase the salaries of the executive and the judicial branches, we should also increase the congres- sional. Why? Why? We increase the salaries of the execu- tive and the judiciary, therefore we have to do it if we are to get competent peo- ple to do the job in those two branches of our Government. That argument does not apply to Congress. Mr. KEATING. The Senator is cor- rect. Let me add one comment. I would prefer to have this amendment apply only to Members of Congress. I understand the problems to which the Senator's amendment is directed. But, in my judgment, the staff members as employees of Congress are deserving of increased compensation now. It would be preferable to adopt the substitute pro- posal of the Senator from Vermont, which is limited to Members of Congress. Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Sena- tor from New York. I am now glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am strongly in favor of increasing the pay for postal and classified personnel, and also for the judiciary. But I shall sup- port the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin to eliminate legislative salary increases. Nevertheless, I believe it should be realized that the actual take- home pay of a Senator or Representative is very much less than commonly be- lieved, after he meets the necessary po- litical expenses of his office. I do not be- lieve that any Senator who votes for an increase in pay should be singled out by the voters, or by anyone else, for con- demnation. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, I am opposed to this increase for Members of Congress. I shall vote for the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. President, I am keenly aware of the difficulties of living on our present congressional salary after meeting the necessary costs of such items as: First, trips back home and travel inside the State, plus, second, the cost of radio and television reports, third, the entertain- ment in Washington of constituents; fourth, donations to charitable organiza- tions and causes which are expected, and, Indeed, almost demanded of public offi- cials; and, fifth, contributions to party funds and to the campaigns of other candidates. After these deductions- to- gether with income taxes and contribu- tions to the retirement fund are sub- tracted from the salary of $22,500, my actual take-home pay in nonelection years is almost never above $7,000 and in election years even less. All this is a strong argument for an increase in congressional salaries and I do not have the slightest criticism either expressed or implied for those of my col- leagues who so vote. But I cannot bring myself to do so for the following rea- sons: First. We in Congress have some op- portunity for legitimate outside earn- ings. It is true that the work in Con- gress is steadily increasing and is at times almost crushing. But there are still opportunities, on weekends, and when Congress is not in session, to earn additional modest amounts in law prac- tice, business, writing, and lecturing. Any danger of a consequent conflict of interest with one's duties as a Congress- man can largely, if not entirely, be averted by requiring full disclosure of outside income and ownership as Sen- ator MORSE and I advocated many years ago and as is now being urged by Sen- ators CASE, NEUBERGER, CLARK, and KEAT- ING. Second. We should remember that with all our 'financial difficulties we in Congress are still in a.very favored eco- nomic position. We should never forget that at least 40 million Americans, or slightly over 20 percent, are living in poverty and that 90 percent of American taxpayers have incomes under $10,000 a year. Probably less than 2 percent have an income of $30,000 for which we are now asked to vote. And yet we are supposed to represent the great bulk of the American people. The danger is that if we provide a salary of $30,000 for ourselves, then it will be easy for us to think as $30,000 a year men customarily do?and to forget what it feels like to live as do the overwhelming majority of our fellow Americans whose interests we should have at heart. Third. Finally, I resent esthetically being put in a position where I must vote on my own salary. No one with any personal dignity likes to exercise the power he possesses to vote himself an increase. I am willing to vote for an increase to others, and, indeed, I favor the other portions of the pay bill, but I would prefer that any increases in con- gressional salaries should come primar- ily from others, such as on the recom- mendation of an impartial committee. I know that in the present instance this is almost impossible to effect and that we are now compelled to decide on our own condition. In Addition to the rea- sons which I have stated, I would there- fore have a certain squeemishness in voting myself an increase, however justified this might be on other grounds. For these reasons I shall support the motion to eliminate congressional salary increases from the bill. But I wish to add that in my judgment there should be no condemnation of those Senators who do vote for the increase and against the amendment. For I know from ex- perience just how difficult the problem is for those without large private re- sources and that this is particularly hard for those with large families to support and educate. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield? Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 15222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina, chairman of the committee, who has been pa- tiently waiting for a long time. I apolo- gize to him. Mr. JOHNSTON. I should like to follow up what the Senator from Illi- nois has just stated. When we put the $7,000 on top of the present salary rate, we find that we would receive only 58 percent of the increase. The rest of it will be taken out for income taxes. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may seem to be arguing in part against myself, but, as I stated, if we deduct the expenses of trips back home, travel inside our States, the cost of radio and television reports, entertaining our Washington constit- uents, donations to charitable organi- zations, the cost of which is expected? indeed, is almost demanded of public officials?and legitimate and proper contributions to party funds, and to the campaigns of other candidates, there is not much left. I believe that this does make a strong case for an increase. Nevertheless, I am opposed to the in- crease. I am not given to self-flagella- tion, but I am opposed to the increase, the reasons for which I have explained. Mr. PROXMIRE. May I say to the Senator from Illinois that although he is supporting my amendment, he has made the strongest argument against it that has been made yet. Mr. DOUGLAS. There is much to be said for such an increase since this is a complicated question. Mr. PROXMIRE. It is, indeed, but this extraordinarily judicious and judi- cial cast of mind is typical of the senior Senator from Illinois. It is typical of his approach to all questions. In reply, however, our TV, newsletter, and other reporting to our constituents is strictly voluntary. Certainly it is vol- untary in the view of those against whom we run. This reporting is a fine thing in democracy. But it is construed by many as self-serving. Some Senators do not ever make a TV or newsletter report to their constituents. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is per- haps the greatest traveler in the Senate. I do not know any Senator who is more energetic than he in getting back home to see his constituents. I shall not in- quire what his travel bill is, but it must be very large judging from my own travel bill which amounts to approximately $3,000 a year. I think all these items should be taken into consideration. But, nevertheless, since we can have legiti- mate outside occupations in which to increase our income we Senators are still in a very favorable economic condition in comparison with other citizens of the United States. It is humiliating to be forced to increase one's own salary. There is an esthetic objection which I have to that. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, about a half hour ago I was challenged rather vigorously as to the correctness of my statement with regard to when the pay raises were put into effect. Since that time. I have had copies of the acts brought to me. I submit that the acts will demonstrate without any question that the salaries of Congress- men in 1946-5'7 was $12,500. I have here Public Law 601 of the 79th Congress, chapter 753, 2d session. This law was passed as the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act of 1946. That is the act which the Senator from Oklahoma said pro- vided for a salary of $22,500. Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator from Oklahoma said nothing of the kind. I stated it provided a salary of $15,000. Mr. LAUSCHE. All right. Let me read what, it states: Effective on the day on which the 80th Congress convenes, the compensation of Sen- ators. Representatives in Congress. Delegates from the Territories. and the Resident Corn- nils.sioner from Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of $12,500 per year. That is what I said. The language of the act definitely establishes the correct- ness of what I said. I further stated that it. was in 1955 that the salaries were raised from $12,500 to $22,500. I have here Public Law 9 of the 84th Congress, chapter 9, 1st session, House Resolution 3828. The act was approved by the President on March 2, 1955. This provides: The compensation of Senators. Represent- atives in Congress, Delegates from the Terri- tories, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of $22,500 per annum. A half hour ago I stated that the sal- aries in 1946 were $12,500. They were raised in 1955 to $22,500. They are now intended to be raised to $30,000. These laws speak for themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that they be printed in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SEC. 4. (it) Section 601(a) of the Legisla- tive Reorganization Act of 1946, as amend- ed, Is amended to read as follows: "(it) The compensation of Senators, Rep- resentatives in Congress, Delegates from the Territories, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of $22,500 per annum each; and the compensa- tion of the Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives shall be at the rate of 635,000 per annum." (b) Section 601(b) of the Legislative Re- organization Act of 1946, as amended (rela- tive to expense allowances of Members of Congress), is hereby repealed. (cc Section 104 of title 3 of the United States Code (relating to the compensation of the Vice President) is amended by striking out "630,000" and substituting therefor "135,000". Sac. 5. The provisions of this Act shall take effect on March 1, 1055. TITLE. VI--COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT PAT OF MEMBERS Or CONGRESS Compensation of Members of Congress Sac. 601. (a) Effective on the day on which the Eightieth Congress convenes, the com- pensation of Senators, Representatives in Congress. Delegates from the Territories, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of $13,500 per annum each; and the compensation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Vice July President of the United States shall he at the rate of $20,000 per annum each. (b) Effective on the day on which the Eightieth Congress convenes there shall be paid to each Senator, Representative in Con- gress, Delegate from the Territories, Resi- dent Commissioner from Puerto Rico, an expense allowance of $2,500 per annum to assist in defraying expenses relating to, or resulting from the discharge of his official duties, for which no tax liability shall incui, or accounting be made; such sum to be paid in equal monthly installments. The sentence contained in the Legis- lative Branch Appropriation Act, 1946, which reads as follows: "There shall be paid to each Representative and Delegate, and to the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Ricc,, after January 2, 1945, an expense allowance of $2,500 per annum to assist In defrayin; expenses related to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties, to be paid in equal monthly installments.", is hereby re- pealed, effective on the day on which the Eightieth Congress convenes. id) The sentence contained in the Legis- lative Branch Appropriation Act, 1947, which reads as follows: "There shall be paid to each Senator after January 1, 1946, an expense allowance of $2,500 per annum to assist in defraying expenses related to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties, t3 be paid In equal monthly installments.", is hereby repealed. effective on the day on Which the Eightieth Congress convenes. Mr. LAUSCHE. I repeat that from $12,500 to $30,000 is a $17,500 increase since 1945, or 140 percent. If those who challenge me?and I sea them on the floor?can find any written law, and not their memory, I wish the:a would find it and show it to me. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, be- fore I yield further, in order that w might have some order in this debate, I would ask other Senators who ask me to yield, to make their statements brief, if they would, or wait until I yield the floor. Then, if they want to carry cal a debate, thty can carry it on them- selves. The way this debate is being conducted now, with this Senator farm- ing out the floor, is not an orderly way to proceed. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Presiden would the. Senator consider a time limi- tation on a vote on the amendment? Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senatcr from Ohio is willing. Mr. LAUSCHE. I object. Mr. MANSFIELD. We will be here late on this one amendment. Mr. LAUSCHE. No. I object becatue I found myself running out of time on every occasion when an important vote was up. Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senator from Ohio would yield for a minute, I think the Senator from Montana only mer.- tioned a tinu limitation on my amenta ment. Is that correct? Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. As far as I am concerned, it does not make a bit of difference to me. I know what I shall do. The Senators can speak from now until doomsday. I shall still vote the same way. We shall stay late tonight. If the Senators do not want to get on to a vote on the amendment, it is no skin off my nose. Mr. PROXMIRE. I will accept ar y limitation that the majority leader wanas Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 'Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 /964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15223 to impose. Would the Senator from Ohio be amenable? Mr. LAUSCHE. I would be willing to talk about it. Mr. PROXMIRE. Would the major- ity leader propose a time limitation on this one amendment alone? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I would like, on this one amendment, to propose that we vote on this amendment at 6 o'clock. Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, I have a substi- tute to this amendment. I do not like to delay it. It will not take me very long. But I want to protect myself. Mr. MANSFIELD. Excuse me. Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sen- ator from Oklahoma. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, on page 217 of the Senate hearings on the Federal pay legislation, it is shown that the pay scale of 1946 was $15,000, the total compensation being $15,000. Ac- cording to footnote 5, this includes a $2,500 expense allowance which was tax free until 1953, when it was made taxable under the provision of the Revenue Act of October 20, 1951. This allowance was discontinued effec- tive March 1, 1955, by the same legisla- tion which increased the salary rate for Members of Congress to $22,500. So, the record is absolutely clear that the pay that Members received was a total of $15,000, $2,500 of which was tax free at that time. It was tax free at that time and it was changed by the Revenue Act of 1951 and made subject to the normal income tax. So we are talking about a salary of $15,000 up to 1955, at which time it was changed to $22,500. Mr. PROXMIRE., Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I rise briefly in order that the record may be corrected in connection with the statements made by my distinguished colleagues, from Wisconsin [Mr. Pitox- Aura] and New York [Mr. KEATING ] , to the effect that the hearings disclose no compelling arguments for increases for the Members of the Congress of the United States. I refer to May 18 of this year when the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN],ap- peared before our committee. Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senator will permit an interruption, I should like to say that the Senator from Wisconsin specifically mentioned the junior Sena- tor from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] and said that he did make an appearance on con- gressional salary increases. As usual, it was very effective and eloquent appear- ance. But I said that that was the only appearance in favor of the congressional increase that I could find. And that ap- pearance was not documented. So far as I can find, no organization appeared to document and support specifically the proposed congressional pay increase. Mr. RANDOLPH. The Randall Com- mission had done so. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] referred to that study. I did not hear all of the Sen- ator's prepared speech of today. I only heard him say in his colloquy with the Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING] that there had been no argument ad- vanced during the hearings for a con- gressional pay increase. I heard that only a few moments ago. I repeat a very valid argument was made by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRK5EN1 before our committee. President Lyndon Johnson has effectively and energetically advo- cated an increase for Members of Con- gress. Perhaps there are a few Senators who voted to decrease their salaries while they were Members of the Congress of the United States. In 1933 I served with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], as Members of the House. I voted to decrease our salaries , to $8,500 a year. So from time to time we have the oppor- tunity and the responsibility to act. We are charged by the Constitution of the United States with setting our salaries. It is a task we must meet by law. I find no fault with any Senator who disagrees with our committee in its bill. However, I remind the Senate that the Senator from Illinois advocated not the $7,500 increase included in the recom- mendation of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and as con- tained in the measure. He recom- mended an increase to $10,000. I think that point should be included as a part of the RECORD. I emphasize that I have no disposition to argue with a colleague on this subject. It is a challenge that, very frankly, we should vote on. The Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] has said, in essence, that in a few minutes or a few hours we will vote as we believe. I believe any Senator knows whether he or she will vote for or against an increase. Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is per- fectly right when he says that the com- mittee did exercise discretion in not go- ing as high not only as the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] recommended but as high as the Randall Commission recommended. The President of the United States also recommended a $10,000 increase for Members of Congress. I am not saying that the committee was particularly ex- cessive, but I do say that neither in the hearings nor in the report of the Ran- dall Commission?and I have the report beginning on page 12 of the hearings? could I find any justification for the proposed congressional increase except, as the Senator from New York so well said, it was a free ride on the increase for the executive and the judicial branches. There was no specific justi- fication for the proposed congressional pay increase. Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. RANDOLPH. Is it not true that in the opinion of the Senator from Wis- consin each and every Senator knows exactly whether he or she will vote for or against the proposed congressional pay increase? Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed. That is why I was ready to vote on the ques- tion some time ago and why I was ready to agree to a request for a time limita- tion on the debate as proposed by the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD ] . Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I believe the proposed pay raise is justified, and I shall vote for it. I have in my hand my income tax return, which Senators are free to look at. The return has been checked by representatives of the Federal Govern- ment. I have been one of the guinea pigs. In my 1960 return I have itemized my deductions. The Government looked over the return. They disallowed about $100 or $200, I believe, by the time they got through examining the returns. On the return I have listed such ex- penses as my home office expenses; ad- ditional telephone and telegraph; public service broadcast, in connection with which I paid for the film, although the station ran it free of charge as a public service; publication clipping service, so that I could see what a low rating I have been getting from the newspapers in my State, and occasionally a compli- mentary remark; photographs sent out to someone who thought enough of me as to wish a picture that they could hang on the wall; petty cash for the office staff, and that sort of thing; en- tertaining constituents; dues to profes- sional organizations; unreimbursed of- fice expenses that I incurred. All of those expenses add up to $28,078. My salary was not exactly $22,500 because I received some addi- tional allowances, such as postage, on which I made a little money. Some al- lowance should be made for that. I grossed $24,000 and my expenses were $28,078. So the best I can make of it is that I was $4,000 in the red. Those figures demonstrate that I have not allowed anything to send my daugh- ter to college. No allowance has been made to operate my home in Louisiana. The figures did not allow for transpor- tation back and forth from home to of- fice and personal expenses. Nothing of that sort is included. What I have stated is what I can deduct because I had the expenses that go with being a U.S. Senator. Last year I made out better. I think I actually came out better by about $3,000. But I am the lowest paid man in my office. In other words, by the time the expenses are considered, the boy who runs errands betwen my office and the Senate Chamber is paid twice as much in terms of net income, as I am paid. Mr. President, I believe I should make a few dollars out of the job. It is most difficult for the Senator from Louisiana to explain to his wife why he is serving for a minus income. I am donating my services because I love the country and the job. Some Members of Congress are bache- lors and some have children who are away, supporting their own families, and are doing so adequately. Mr. President, I am having prepared an amendment which I shall offer, which will provide that before a Member of Congress receives the proposed pay raise, he will sign a statement, first, that he is Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 15224 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE of the opinion that his services justify his receiving the Proposed Pay raise. Second, that unless he receives the pay raise, he will not be able to meet his es- sential expenses of providing the services that he is trying to provide for his State, his constituents, and his Nation as a Sen- ator. If he really did not believe that, and if he could not subscribe to that statement, he would not receive the in- crease. For example, he may be like my friend on the House side, whose name I shall not mention, even though he makes no secret of his attitude. According to his own statement, he gives his entire salary to the church. After he pays his taxes, whatever he has left over he gives to the church. He is working for God and the country. If all we are doing is acting upon a proposed pay increase in order that Members of Congress may donate more to the church, I could not go along with the proposal because it would violate the principle of separation of church and state. [Laughter. We should not pass a pay raise bill which would merely put more money into a church's till. But if some Member of Congress has need of the increase in order to provide the service that is expected of him and that he would like to provide for his constitutents, then he should be able to state that he is worth that amount of money to the country for the services he is rendering and that the expenses he incurs actually justify his receiving the increase. I would not require that a man make money in his private en- deavors in order to carry the expenses of being a U.S. Senator. The salary should be adequate so that one could give up his law practice, if that were his sole source of income, in order to serve his country as a Senator. On that basis I expect to vote for the bill. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. the Senator from Louisiana has said that in 1960 his expenses were $28,000. Obvi- ously the proposed $7,500 increase would not be nearly enough. On that basis it could be argued that if our salary were $40,000 it would not be sufficient. We are outgoing people. We love to entertain our constituents, to serve our constituents, and to report to our con- stituents. We would find ways of spend- ing that much and more. But this kind ef spending is voluntary. It is usually political. And it is frequently self- : crying. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. My amend- ment would make it possible for my friend from Wisconsin to be a cutrate renator. He could say. "If the people ep there don't want me, they can vote ir someone else, but I come cheaper." i Laughter.] Let us consider some Members who are not really worth the money paid. They ttend only about half the rollcalls. r.hey would not need to certify that I bey were worth the money. They could then do their job at a lower figure. They could say, "I have not done much. 3 have not been very constructive, but 1 iok at all the money you are saving with me in Congress. It will not cost you much to have me around." A man could be a cutrate Member of Congress under my amendment. [Laughter.] I hope there will be some. I am satis- fied that there are some Members of Congress who are not worth that money. On the other hand, the last two Presi- dents of the United States have been Members of the Senate. My guess is that as Senators they worked as dili- gently to discharge their duties to our country as they did when they were President. When President Lyndon B. Johnson was sitting in the seat now oc- cupied by the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIE1.131, he tried to serve his country as weU RS he is now doing in the White House, although now he re- ceives in pay several times what he made then as a Senator. Mr. President, unless I miss my guess, though it is the same man, he is worth a great deal more money because it was the decision of the people to put him where he is. Some of these people are being very in- adequately paid, while other people are being paid too much. I am going to offer an amendment that will leave it to the conscience of Members of Con- gress as to whether they should get such pay or not. Mr. PROXMIRE. I shall be delighted to vote for the amendment of the Sen- ator from Louisiana. I am sure all 100 Senators will feel free to vote for It. When it becomes law we can cheerfully sign to the effect that our services justify our salaries, and that our services are essential to the Nation. I said before that I thought the serv- ices of Senators are worth $50,000 or S100.000, but we know that we do not have to increase the pay of Senators to persuade them to serve here. There is much competition, outstanding competi- tion?too strong competition?for this office. Therefore, there is no justification for paying a salary increase of a whopping one-third when a Congress- man already makes more than what 98 percent of the people of America receive. The Randall Commission made the case for the executive department. It did not make a case for Members of Cone ress. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President. will the Senator yield? Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Per- haps the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, instead of providing that a Member should certify as to what he thinks he is worth, should provide that the people back home should say how much they think he is worth. Mt. PROXMIRE. That would be a dangerous amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I want to support the Senator from Wisconsin in his pending amendment. I think a pay raise for Members of Congress should be decided on its own merits, without being a coattail rider to this bill. Some employees of the Government will be getting less than a 1.6-percent in- crease. I do not know why we should hook on a 331/3-percent increase for Members of Congress as a rider to this July 1 bill. I think a pay raise for Members of Congress should be considered as a com- pletely separate bill. I would like to sup- port portions of the pending bill. There is nothing in the law which re- quires a Member of Congress to spend $8,000, $10,000 or $15,000 to advertise himself and to help get himself reelected If Members of Congress want to be re- elected they should pay for it out of their own pockets, the same as our opponents are required to do. I am in favor of the cost-of-living in- crease proposed in this bill for the postal workers and other civil service workers This amounts to a raise of from 2 to I percent. If the pay for Members of Congress is Increased by 33 percent it also has a mathematical effect of increasing the retirement benefits by 61 percent for each year for the next 5 years. Thie should certainly be taken into considera- tion when the retirement fund already Is insolvent. Certainly the proposal to raise salaries of Members of Congress should be dealt, with in a separate bill rather thar. hooked onto this bill as a coattail rider. In line with what the Senator from. Ohio has said, there seems to be an argue ment as to what the congressional sal- aries were in prior years. In 1916 congressional salaries were $10,000, be- ginning in 1947 the congressional salaries were $12,500 plus $2,500 expense allow-. ance, the lett( r item being tax free. In 1953 I introduced the amendment which made that $2,500 allowance taxa-. ble. This made the whole $15,000 salary taxable. In 1954 there was another increase or 50 percent. to 122.500. So, mathematically, Members of Con- gress had a 50-percent increase in dol- lar income in 1947 and another 50 per- cent increase in 1954, and the presen; proposal would be a 3313 percent on top of that, which means that if the bill is passed Members of Congress will be re - ceiving a 300 percent increase over and above what they were receiving in 1946. Congressional retirements are increased at an even larger percentage under these bills. I think these facts should be dealt with and pointed out when an attempt is be- ing made to hook an increase onto a pay bill which increases the pay of the aver- age Federal employees from 2 to 5 per- cent. This proposal should be separated and made on its own merits. If it can- not be supported on its own merits it should not pass. I shall support the amendment of tle2 Senator from Wisconsin which would strike from the bill all proposed increases for the legislative branch. If this is successful I will support the other provi- sions of the bill. But if they are kept tied together I shall not vote for the bit.. When Congress has balanced the budget but six times in the past 35 years I do not think we merit a raise of the proportions suggested here. Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Sen- ator from Delaware. He is correct when he says that this congressional salary increase is strictly a coattail rider. There is no question that if a congres- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 ? Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE sional pay raise were proposed by itself, it might face quite a different fate than what is now proposed. Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may suggest the absence of a quorum, without losing the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: [No. 457 Leg.] Hruska Monroney Inouye Morse Johnston Morton Jordan, Idaho Moss Keating Mundt Kuchel Nelson Lausche Prouty Long, La. Proxmire Mansfield Randolph McClellan Scott McGovern Sparkman McIntyre Thurmond McNamara Walters Williams, Del. Aiken Allott Beall Bennett Burdick Carlson Church Clark Cotton Douglas Fulbright Gore Hart Hickenlooper Mechem Holland Miller The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL- SON in the chair) . A quorum is not present. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be di- rected to request the attendance of ab- sent Senators. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Montana. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser- geant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate. After a little delay Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. BYRD of Virginia, Mr. BYRD of West Vir- ginia, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CASE, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CURTIS, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. DODD, Mr. DOMINICK, Mr., EASTLAND, Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. GRUENING, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. HILL, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina, Mr. LONG of Missouri, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MCCARTHY, Mr. MCGEE, M. METCALF, Mr. MUSKIE, Mrs. NEUBERGER, Mr. PAS- TORE, Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. SIMPSON, Mrs. SMITH, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. TALMADGE, Mr. TOWER, Mr. WILLIAMS Of New Jersey, Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota, and Mr. YOUNG of Ohio entered the Chamber and answered to their names. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED- MONDSON] , the Senator from North Caro- lina [Mr. Email], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Rhode.Island [Mr. PELL], the Sen- ator from Connecticut [Mr. Raticorf], the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATH- ERS], the Senator from Texas [Mr. YAR- BOROUGH], and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN] are absent on official busi- ness. I further announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Sena- tor from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the Sen- ator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are absent because of illness. Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bocas] is absent to attend the funeral of a relative. No. 132-26 The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Form], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are necessarily ab- sent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment in the nature of a substitute and ask that it be read and given immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The legislative clerk read as follows: In lieu of the language contained in the pending amendment, insert the following: "On page 114, strike out lines 17 to 24, inclusive. "Beginning with line 5 on page 166, strike out over through line 2 on page 167 and in- sert in lieu thereof the following: "'SEC. 501. This act and the increases in compensation by this Act shall become effec- tive on July 1, 1054.'" Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, on my amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I wish to advise Senators that I intend to speak briefly. If they will remain in the Chamber, perhaps we can vote in the near future. The amendment would merely strike from the bill the provisions permitting increases in congressional salaries. There is much logic in some of the argu- ments to the effect that an increase in congressional salaries is needed. I re- member reading in the New York Times magazine several months ago an article by a Member of the other body who was serving his first term in Congress. Formerly he had been a professor in a university. He said, if I recall the ar- ticle correctly, that his university salary, which was about half the amount of his congressional salary, enabled him to get along much more comfortably and to save more at the end of the year than he could possibly have saved as a Member of Congress. There is much merit in that argument. Yet people throughout the country have a feeling that the salaries which we receive as Members of Congress are high enough to enable us to live luxuriously. They fail to realize and appreciate the tremendous burden of expenses which the average Member of Congress must assume in his campaigns, his entertain- ment of constituents, his travel, and in many other ways?expenses which no business or professional man is faced with. Despite these things, we cannot blink the fact that we knew what the office paid when we sought it. Nor can we deny that millions of other Americans are forced to live, day by day, on the tiniest fraction of our own incomes. The disabled worker, the unemployed family man, retired folks living on meager pensions?all of these know what it means to tighten their belts and to go without things they might like to have or which they actually need. At present, however, the Federal budget is far out of balance. It is likely to be out of balance for some time. Should we not in such circumstances 15225 establish some list of priorities, some catalogue of claims and rights, that ought to take precedence over our own? Let there be an increase in congres- sional pay, but let it come on that day when social security benefits, compensa- tion for the disabled, and aid to the un- employed are at adequate levels of decency. Let it come when our Federal financial house is in order and when we have taken care of first priorities first. Many Members of the Senate and House feel that they need and can justify a pay increase; but who among us would deny that there are others who need help much more than we do? The argument may be made that if my amendment in the nature of a substi- tute were adopted, it would make it pos- sible for members of the legislative staffs to receive greater compensation than is paid to Members of Congress. However, if my amendment in the nature of a substitute is approved, I shall offer a second amendment which would make it impossible to increase staff salaries beyond $22,000. Thus, staff would not be entitled to more compensation than is being paid to Members of Congress. That is all I wish to say. I am ready to vote at any time. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. PROUTY. I yield. Mr. PROXMIRE. Do I correctly un- derstand that the Senator's amendment in its present form would limit all staff Increases to the maximum of the salaries paid to Members of the Senate and House? Mr. PROUTY. No; the second amend- ment would do that. Mr. PROXMIRE. The first amend- ment, however, would bar an increase for Members of the Senate and House. In other words, their salaries would re- main at $22,500. It would permit the compensation of the Librarian of Con- gress, the Public Printer, and the Archi- tect of the Capitol to go to $26,000; it would permit the salary of the Deputy Librarian of Congress to go to. $24,500; and would permit the compensation of the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, arid the legisla- tive counsel of the Senate to go to $27,500? Mr. PROUTY. The Senator is cor- rect; but, as I have explained, I shall offer a second amendment, in case my amendment in the nature of a substi- tute is approved. Mr. PROXMIRE. If the amendment of the Senator from Vermont were re- jected, it would mean that the entire legislative title of the bill, title 2, could be eliminated, and no increases would be provided for members of the legisla- tive branch? Mr. PROUTY. No, indeed. Mr. PROXMIRE. If the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, which is a substitute for the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, does not pre- vail, the Senate will have before it the amendment of the Senator from Wis- consin, which simply deletes title 2 and Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R000500050601-9 15226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE eliminates legislative increases. Is that correct? Mr. PROUTY. That is correct. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President. I think we are putting the cart ahead of the horse with respect to the amendment. If we adopt the Prouty amendment in the nature of a substitute, and if we then defeat the second Prouty amendment, we shall be in a rather ludicrous situation. Furthermore. if we adopt the Prouty amendment in the nature of a substi- tute and then adopt the second Prouty amendment, or if we adopt the Prox- mire amendment, consider the situation that will confront us. On page 115 of the bill, provision is made for the salaries of Cabinet officers at $35000. On page 116, salaries of $39.000 are provided for such persons as the Admin- istrator of Veterans' Affairs. the Admin- istrator of the Housing and Home Fi- nance Agency, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Director of the U.S. Information Agency. On page 117, salaries of $28,500 are provided for the Deputy Postmaster Gen- eral and, among others, the Deputy Ad- ministrator of Veterans' Affairs and the Director of the Peace Corps. Beginning on page 20, salaries of $27.000 are provided for the Deputy Ad- ministrator of General Services; six As- sistant Administrators of the Agency for International Development: four Re- gional Assistant Administrators of the Agency for International Development; the Deputy Director of the Peace Corps; Counselor of the Department of State; Legal Adviser of the Department of State: Governor of the Farm Credit Ad- ministration; Inspector General, Foreign Assistance; members of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Au- thority, and many others. I note that, beginning on page 124, salaries of $26,000 are provided for other types of Federal appointees, such as the Administrator of the Agricultural Sta- bilization and Conservation Service, De- partment of Agriculture; the Adminis- trator of the National Capital Trans- portation Agency; four Deputy Admin- istrators of the Small Business Admin- istration; Associate Deputy Administra- tor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Deputy Associ- ate Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Chief For- ester, Forest Service; Chief Postal In- spector; Chief, Weather Bureau. Depart- ment of Commerce; Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; Chief Commissioner, In- dian Claims Commission; two Associate Commissioners. Indian Claims Commis- sion; and such other persons as Associate Director for Volunteers, Peace Corps; As- sociate Director for Program Develop- ment and Operations, Peace Corps. One would think there would be a few volunteers in the Peace Corps head- quarters. Another such position is that of Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Hundreds of such people would be drawing salaries considerably higher than the salaries of Members of Congress. This is a very unfair, unwise, and stupid move. Do not think that we shall be fooling the folks by taking such a step. I doubt whether any votes would be gained by such a move as this. If Senators do not want to ride in on the coattails of the Post Office and Civil Service employees, the thing to do is not to provide salary increases for the judi- ciary and executive branch, including the hundreds of people to whom I have been referring, and for all Members of Congress. Then take up a separate bill. Let those stand on their own merits. I have not had the floor very long. Many Senator will please face it and not sug- gest a vote at this time because I am perfectly capable of going for a long time; but I am going to say something on this subject, because I believe there is much- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NELSON in the chair). The Senator will suspend. The Senate will be in order. The Senator may proceed. Mr. MILLFR, I thank the Chair. I believe there is a little bit of what we might call, very politely, window dressing in the Chamber, in discussing this bill. The Senator from Ohio pointed out a certain position for Members of Con- gress that has occurred in the past few years. I wish that the Senator from Ohio had given us a comparable list of Increases in salaries of the various of- ficials which I have read off, as well as the Federal judiciary. Let us treat everyone alike, instead of singling out Members of Congress. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield? Mr. MILLER. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. Examination of the record will show that pay raises have gone on in extravagant fashion with all except the lower class of employees. The proportion of the increase may not be so great for commission members, board members, judges, and others, as it is for Senators. Mr. MILLER. In many cases, it will be found to be about the same. I believe that the RECORD should show this. Mr. LAUSCHE. I directed my re- marks to the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin because it dealt only with the legislative branch, but I believe that my remarks are just as effective against the judiciary, board members, and others. I read in the newspaper the other day that an exhibitor of a foreign country at the New York World's Fair had to pay $150 to get a clogged sink loosened. ' If we keep passing this kind of pay raise, how will we ever stop the inordi- nate and extravagant demands that will come in from all over the country? If we begin to give ourselves this huge pay raise, will anyone dare to open his mouth against inflationary measures? We recommend 3.2 percent as a gen- eral pay increase, but we are going to give ourselves 331/3 percent over the $10,000 which we gave ourselves in 1955. I agree with what the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG] said 2 hours ago: How can we do it? uly 1 This haste for a vote, this slicuting to vote, seems to me to be an irclicatien that we wish to drop the curtain as quickly as we can so that our voices wAl not go out to the country on what we are doing here. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. w .11 the Senator from Iowa yield? Mr. MILLER.. I am happy to yield to the distinguished majority leader, the Senator from Montana I Mr. MANSFIELD 1. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I find it a little difficult to understand why we are so anxious to pick on ourselves all the time, and so loath to say anything about the executive branch downtown which will get the large raise that is contemplated in this bill. They have got cars and chauffeurs. How many Senators in the Chamber have cars ard chauffeurs? What kind of people are we? Do we have a position of importance, or do we not? Do we have to fight for a job, or are we appointed? There are too many Senators who are picking on Members of their own bo y, finding fault with ourselves. We are all for the "little guy." No one wishes to do anything to hurt him. But, now we have something directed agaiast us. We are getting too much. We kr ew what the salary would be when we ran for office. Of course we did. The responsibility for raising our ray, or as the Senator from West Virginia said, for lowering our pay, lies with us. We have to make that choice. We have to go back home and tell the people what we did or did not do. I wonder what kind of people we are. Mr. JAWTS. Mr. President, will the Senator from. Iowa yield? Mr. MILLER. I am glad to yielc to the Senator from New York. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I rise only because of what the majority leader . has just said. I should like to sustain him. I shall vote against these amend- ments. I shall be happy to explain it to my People. With respect to an increase in salary, as a Senator, I have always spent more than I have received in salary. I p;:ob- ably always will, due to the requiremmts of this position. As a Senator from New York, with the manifold accompanying duties imposed, many of which, the Senator from Illi- nois [Mr. Donnas] has listed, I have in- curred substantial expenditures for re- search, living in Washington, and travel. Mr. President, our job as U.S. Senators, is to earn what we receive. We should make no apology for it. We are en- titled to a decent living. I have been on many hoards of corporations. I was a lawyer representing substantial busi- nesses long before I was a Senator or Representative. During those days, we would be delighted to pay $30.000 or $35,- 000 a year to a good branch manager of a bank, or to a vice president, or to the manager of a modern industrial plant provided that he did a good job. The majority leader is absolutely right, we should not be apologizing. We should be determined to stand up in a refreshing way, which the American Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15227 People will like, and respect. We should say "yes," we are going to pass this pay bill as it was reported by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee because on the scale of salaries paid modern busi- ness executives, we are worth it. I am 60 years old. I have been a suc- cessful lawyer. I have earned three times what I shall receive as a Senator at $30,000 a year. I need apologize to no one. There is no need for any other Member of this body to do likewise. What we should resolve is that we will do a good job, and that we will do the job which is fully worthy of the pay we shall receive. I am sure that the American people will be refreshed by the fact that we will face our responsibilities in that way. A Senator is entitled to a decent and a dignified living. It is impossible to earn a decent and a dignified living unless we do something about a pay adjustment in light of mod- ern conditions. One other point; we have a major role in the operation of the $100 billion business of the running of the Federal Government. Let no one forget that. We and the other body are the "board of directors" of that business. It is the greatest business mankind has ever con- jured up. It seems to me that we should be able to make ourselves worthy of this salary increase to the American people. We must not compare ourselves with those earning $4,000 to $5,000 a year, as the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROX- MIRE] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY] propose, and that we re- duce our pay to that level. Of course not. We demean ourselves in the eyes of the country. We need only compare ourselves with those of commensurate responsibility. I believe that $30,000 a year is a very fair salary?very fair. I am fully pre- pared to justify it to any fairminded jury of Americans in my State?or in any other State of the Union. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield? Mr. MILLER. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I be- lieve that the whole case is misstated in discussing congressional salaries. We are not appropriating money or authorizing it for EVERETT DIRKSEN or for BARRY GOLDWATER Or for JACK JAVITS or for WIN PROUTY. This authorizes the money that shall be paid for the office that we occupy. If the people back home do not believe we are worth it, it will not take them very long to haul us back from Wash- ington. It is about time for us to recognize the fact that this authorizes pay for an office which is set up under the Constitution of the United States. Tragically enough, this is one of the unsolved problems in the Constitution of the United States, because it provides that the remuneration of Senators and Representatives shall be ascertained by law. What is the lawmaking body? Con- gress is the lawmaking body. We have no choice. We have authority over the President's salary. We have au- thority to fix the salaries of judges, ex- cept that we cannot reduce them. We have authority over the salaries in Gov- ernment, and we have the vexing task of fixing our own salaries. It is about time for us to face the issue. What is the Senate going to look like, when the House of Representatives by a majority of 87 has put this pay raise for Representatives in the bill?and if I had It to do, it would be larger?believe me. But what is going to be the comparison? It will be said, "They have some guts In the House of Representatives, but the Senate would not stand up to it." I had something to do with this bill twice before. The Senator from Okla- homa [Mr. MONRONEY] Will remember that in 1946 in the formulation of the Reorganization Act, when he was vice chairman of the committee, a pay raise and a retirement system were provided. Did we receive any backlash? Certainly we did not. I offered a resolution in 1954 to set up the Segal Committee of 18 persons. They made their report. And then we had to discount their report. I am sorry I ever let it happen without making a protest. But timid people said, "Cut it $2,500." And I let them talk me into it, for which I am sorry. We have the same thing now. It is said, "If we cut it just a little, maybe you can take it." I did not find that the electorate took any excep- tion to it particularly. Then we raised it. Now, I suppose, judging from the remarks of my distinguished friend from Ohio, we are far ahead of the game. Will my friend from Iowa bear with me a few minutes? Mr. MILLER. I yield. Mr. DIRKSEN. We started in 1789, when Representatives and Senators re- ceived $6 a day when they attended a ses- sion. A farmer receives five times that much today. In 1815, 26 years later, an annual sal- ary of $1,500 was finally set. We had to wait 26 years to catch up. Think of it. We do not see workers doing that when collective bargaining is involved. In 1817, the rate was placed at $8 a day. In 1855-38 years later?there was a change in congressional salary. It then became the munificent sum of $3,000 a year. In 1865, the last year of the war, it was placed at $5,000. Six years later, it was set at $7,500. They never did catch up. Then, in 1874, what was done? The rate was reduced back to $5,000. In 1907-31 years later?the salary of Members of the House and Senate was raised. Then, it went back to $7,500. In 1925?they had to wait 18 years for the next pay raise. The salary was set at $10,000. So there have been only four increases since the Civil War?a period of 99 years. Just think of it. When we talk about reducing our salaries, or removing them from the bill, we demean our own bodies. I will not do it. If my people want to drag me back home, they can do so. I have defended these pay raises before. And I intend to do so again. The Senator from Ohio raised the question about how this proposal com- pared with the situation of employees in Government. I have a statement from the Budget Bureau. They took as a base the postal clerks, and, taking grade 4, carried through a comparison with con- gressional salaries from 1935 to 1964. That is a period of 29 years. And what was the aggregate? The employees received a total increase of 194 percent. The Representatives and Senators re- ceived a 170 percent increase. We never did catch up. And it is about time for us to catch up. If we want to put it on a base of pro- ductivity and take 3.2 percent as a pro- ductive level from 1955 to 1964, even on that basis, our pay ought to be $31,000. In 1935, when I was in the House, our pay was $10,000. How much income tax did we pay? $188. So, after taxes we had about $9,800 left. The purchasing power of the dollar then was 100 percent. So we can say that out of our salary in 1935 dollars, we had a purchasing power of $9,800. What was it in 1955? We went up to $22,500. Deductions for living expenses were $3,000. The net salary was $19,500. The income tax was?not $188?but $3,954. After taxes, what did we have left? $15,500. The purchasing power of the dollar had dropped to 51.3 percent. So, how much did we have left out of $22,500 in terms of 1935 dollars? We had $7,975 left?infinitely smaller by nearly.$2,000 than we had in 1935. In this bill, a salary of $30,000 is pro- posed. There would be deductions of $3,000 and a net salary of $27,000. The income tax will be?not $188?but $5,532. After taxes, what have we left out of $30,000? $21,468. The purchasing power of the dollar as of now is 44.4 percent. The purchasing power of our salary in 1935 dollars is $9,532. We are $400 behind what we re- ceived at $10,000 in 1935. If one questions the figures, call up the Deputy Director of the Budget, call up the Director of the Civil Service Com- mission. They will supply a copy of the figures. Any way we take it, this increase for Members of Congress ought to be larger than that which is provided for in the bill. I am not going to modify it. But I hope we shall not face this issue with a degree of timidity and let the ballot- box scare anyone. JOE EVINS, of Ten- nessee, made a count of every House Member who voted for the House in- crease in salary in 1955. Not a Member who voted for it who was defeated was at the polls. Is it not about time that we assert our own prestige and take our place in the sun of government? Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. DIRKSEN. We do not hear the executive branch mentioned the oppo- nents take on their own branch. It will not pay off at all. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield? Mr. DIRKSEN. Let me tell Barkley's story and then I shall yield. It will be remembered that when Barkley went home, an old fellow told Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001 -9 15228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July / him: "I voted for you. I am not going to vote for you again." He said, "Why not?" The fellow said, "I am not going to vote for a stupid guy who voted not to increase his salary when he was en- titled to it." Now I yield. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President. I have the floor. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent. that the Senator might yield to me for one brief statement. Mr. MILLER. I yield. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator from Illinois mentioned a comparison of the situation in 1964 with that existing back in 1935. The Senator did not men- tion that in 1935 Congress stayed In ses- sion for 5 months on an average in the year. The Members of Congress had 7 months in which to practice law. Two- thirds of the Members of the Senate were lawyers. My father made a lot more money as a lawyer than as a Sen- ator. As a matter of fact, as I remember it, my mother told him that he could not afford the job. He replied: "Con- gress is going to raise the pay." The first thing they did was to cut the pay when they got in. Mr. DIRKSEN. I remember that. I was on a couple of investigating com- mittees, and from one end of the year to the other, I was scarcely at home. This is a 12-month job, any way we take it. Go back home and see what happens. Constituents Will make a beaten path to the offices or to the homes of Senators, or wherever they can find them, because the world is full of business which is somehow localized and centralized In this body. Every amendment that has been of- fered?and there are 8 or 10 of them?ought to be voted down by the Senate, because they degrade this body. We ought to have short shrift of it and take some pride in the fact that we are attaching a paycheck to a job and not to the person who is in it. Let the peo- ple decide whether he has earned it or not. I am sorry. I thank my friend. Mr. MILLER. The Senator need not be sorry, because he has said as elo- quently as any Senator why we should vote against the pending amendment. I repeat that an we have to do is to look at the pages in the bill to which I refer- red and look at the hundreds of Federal employees who would be drawing more pay than a Member of the U.S. Senate if the Prouty amendment and the Prox- mire amendment are adopted. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President. af- ter careful thought, I have decided to vote against the congressional pay raise. I cannot in good conscience vote to in- crease my salary at a time when many of my constituents are financially pinched. So I will support the amend- ment to eliminate the Increase in con- gressional salaries from the bill. It is true that the cost of living in official Washington is very high. It is true that with five children to rear and educate, I have some financial anxieties with my present income. Each year, I must reach heavily into my salarY, to cover the cost of travel to and from my State. Each year. I must devote a part of my salary to postage, television films. radio tapes, and the entertainment of constituents, not covered by the office allowance. But I cannot bring myself to vote to raise my pay, when thousands of farm- ers, ranchers, cattle feeders, business- men. and working people are under as much or more financial pressure than I am. If the congressional pay raise is eliminated from the bill. I could then vote to raise the salary of other Federal workers and postal workers who are hard pressed to make ends meet. If the amendment to remove the congressional pay raise fails. however, I will vote against the entire Federal pay raise bill. So far as I am concerned, I would rather see Congress provide adequate al- lowances for the operation of our offices, including travel allowance. We would not be in need of a salary increase if we did not find it necessary to devote so much of our salary to traveling back and forth to our States and to financing such costs as telephone calls, telegrams, and other costs that may run to several thou- sand dollars a year. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY] In the nature of a substitute. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Erwin', the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Risic0FF1, the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERSI, the Sena- tor from Texas [Mr. Yariscatononl, the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND- SON 1, and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN], are absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH I, and the Sen- ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerr- rasoyl , are absent because of illness. On this vote, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Rtsicoesi is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATEERSI If present and voting, the Senator from Connecticut would vote "nay" and the Senator from Florida would vote "yea''. I further announce that, if present and voting. the Senator from Washing- ton [Mr. Jacxsow], and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL1, would each vote "nay." Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Boacsi is absent to attend the funeral of a relative. The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON], and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. SALT0NSTALL1 are necessarily ab- sent. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] would vote "nay." The result was announced?yeas 25, nays 60, as follows: Burdick Byrd, Va. Cannon Church Cooper Cotton Curtis Ellender Fulbright Aiken Allott Anderson Bartlett Beall Bennett Bible Brewster Byrd, W. V. Carlson Case Clark Dirksen Dodd Dominick Douglas Eastland Goldwater Gore Gruening Bayh Boggs Edmondson Engle Ervin [No. 458 Leg.] YEAS-25 Hartke Holland Hruska Keating LauscOe Mechem Morton Moss Mundt NAYS?GO Hart ILokenlooper Hill Humphrey Inouye Jay its Johnston Jordan, N.C. Jordan, Idaho Kuchel Long, Mo. Long, La. Magnuson Mansfield McCarthy McClellan McGee McGovern McIntyre McNamara Prouty Robertson Scott Simpson Symington Thurmond Williams, Del. Metcalf Miller Monroney Morse Muskie Nelson Neuberi.ier Pastore Proxmire Randolph Russell Smith Sparkman Stennis Talmadge Tower Walters Y.J. Young, N. Dak. Young, Ohio NOT VOTING-15 Fong Hayden Jackson Kmnedy Pearson Pell Ribicoff Saltonstall Smathers Yarborough So Mr. PROUTY'S amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the tab:e. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should like to have the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] and the attention of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] , for a moment, because I need a little help and clarifica- tion. There are some aspects of this bill that disturb me very much, but, at the same time, I think most of the in- creases are justified. Am I correct that, so far as the aivil service workers are concerned, the in- crease for them is at a much lower per- centage?somewhere between 3 and 5 percent?as compared with the percant- age of increase for Cabinet officers, judges, and others in the GO-Cf fled higher pay brackets? Mr. JOHNSTON. That is true. 'Et is higher. Mr. MORSE. What is the difference? Mr. JOHNSTON. The increase is about 331/3 percent for Members of Con- gress and of the Cabinet. Does the Sen- ator want the figures all the way to grade 1? The increase for that low grade is 2 or 3 percent, because those employees have received more frequent Increases in the past. Mr. MORSE. They have been receiv- ing many increases, but the increases give those in the lower brackets an an- nual income of approximately how much? Mr. JOHNSTON. For the class.fied employees, the grades go all the ivy Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 ? ? Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15229 down to 1, and the increase there is very low. Mr. MORSE. Many of them are in the salary bracket of $8,000 or $9,000, as compared with $20,000 or $30,000 in the upper brackets. Is that correct? Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes. Mr. MORSE. We must act on pro- posed legislation as it comes off the cal- endar. Sometimes the order in which it is considered is not what we would pre- fer. It is too bad that the Senate does not have before it the legislative appro- priation bill ahead of the bill it is now considering. I have listened to some very interesting debate this afternoon about problems that confront Members of Con- gress in regard to salaries and costs and expenses of the job. The so-called political expenes of the job certainly should not be borne, directly or indirectly, by the taxpayers. We sought the job, and we should be ex- pected to pay the so-called direct and in- direct political expenses of the job. Yet some of the speeches this afternoon sur- prised me a little in that they seemed to imply that we ought to give some con- sideration to the fixing of salaries based on what we have to pay for so-called political expenses. However, there is a type of expense connected with the job that is based upon a formula which is applied that works many inequities within the Senate. I refer to the allowances that are granted for so-called office expenses, using as the determining factor the population of a State as compared with others, with not too much weight given to geographical distances, nor too much weight given to the actual difference in the business done as compared with other offices. I do not want to engage in any per- sonal discussion other than to say, for example, that some of us who come from States with relatively small populations are greatly limited in the expense allow- ance to our offices, but are put to much heavier expenses than are other Sena- tors, for a variety of reasons. I suppose such a matter is determined to a great extent by the discussion of Senators. I shall be brief when I make this state- ment, but for many years on the floor of the Senate I have said that I think the taxpayers are perfectly willing to pay for the legitimate expenses of a Senator's office in transacting Senate business. I have not kept records on this matter, except for the past 12 years. I plow back into my desk, and have for years, the equivalent of three hon- orarium speeches to pay the extra cost of transacting business in connection with long-distance telephone calls, tel- egrams, and airmail stamps, which run to $800 to $900 out of my own pocket. I mention it now only because I hope that when the Senate considers the leg- islative appropriation bill this year, the Appropriations Committee will take a long look at the formula. I have in- sisted for years that if more money were to be allowed for the expenses of a Sen- ate office, it should be on an accountable basis, and that accounting should be published for the benefit of the public. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I invite his atten- tion to the fact that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] is present? He happens to be chairman of the sub- committee that handles the matter the Senator from Oregon is discussing. I merely wanted to call to the attention of the Senator from Oklahoma what the Senator from Oregon is discussing. Mr. MORSE. It is important that we take care of the actual official Senate expenses of our offices rather than put Senators in the position where they do the business but pay for it out of their own pockets. I do not think the tax- payers expect that. I wanted to make that point in this discussion. It does not have a direct bearing on the issue before us; it has an indirect one. I do not know why there is this reticence to allow an accounted expense allowance which actually covers the of- ficial cost of operating the office of a Senator in serving the people of a State and of the Nation. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. PROXMIRE. I merely wish to say that I agree 100 percent with the Senator from Oregon. He is absolutely correct. In fact, I go further and say that a Senator from Hawaii or Alaska or Washington or Oregon has an enor- mous travel expense. The present al- lowance is for only three trips home. Under those circumstances it is very un- just. The way to handle the situation is not by way of a general salary increase but, as the Senator has implied, by per- mitting a Senator to be compensated for all the legitimate expenses of his office. I shall support such a proposal in any way, shape, or form with regard to tele- phone and telegraph expenses. I agree that the taxpayers would understand such a proposal. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Sen- ator is correct. There is some confusion between official duties and political in- terests. I recognize that fact. How- ever, following the course of action that I follow in the Senate, if I did not go home at least one weekend a month, I would not have any political boards left on my fences back home. One does not go home one weekend a month free of ex- pense. I see my good friend the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] smiling. That is why, through his good offices or the good offices of the Senator's assistant in Chicago, I will stop off in Chicago and make a speech, which will cover the ex- penses, or perhaps make a speech in San Francisco or Seattle or somewhere else. Let us face the realities when we get to the legislative appropriation bill, and see to it that we take a good, long look at the problem. That leads me to my next point. We should make very clear that with respect to expenditures for telephone calls and telegrams and for air mail stamps, there should be a public accounting once a year. My next point is that in due course? not tonight?I shall offer an amendment to the bill. I have several amendments, but I shall offer one which will be the old 1946-as-revised-from-time-to-time Morse full public-disclosure bill. A Sen- ator came to me a few minutes ago and said: One of the things that I like about your public disclosure bill is that it does not limit itself to Members of Congress, but covers the judiciary and the Cabinet and other officials in the high income bracket. I shall press that amendment later. Those are factors we ought to consider in connection with the pending bill, rather than speed the bill through very quickly, as there is at present?and I say this most respectfully and noncriti- cally?pressure in the Senate. I am always unhappy when I cannot accommodate myself to certain pro- posals. Some amendments ought to be considered. I cannot accommodate my- self to proposals that have been made in the past hour for a unanimous-con- sent agreement to fix a time, to limit de- bate on amendments, and to limit debate on the bill. Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator from Oregon for bringing to the atten- tion of the Senate some of the matters we have considered in committee in recommending an increase in congres- sional salaries. If Senators will look at pages 116 and 117 of the bill, they will note that we brought the compensation of Members of the Senate and the House in line with those of Under Secretaries of the execu- tive departments. They have tradition- ally been in that bracket. So far as addi- tional expenses are concerned, we did not consider the expenses that the Under Secretaries have either. I do not believe that the Members of the Senate and of the House ought to be in a lower bracket than the Under Secretaries of the execu- tive departments. There are about 19 who have the same salaries as Members of the House and of the Senate. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that It be read. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator from Iowa proposes to strike lines 2, through 6 of the Proxmire amendment No. 1084 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "through line 3 on page 166"; on page 2, line 1, change "title IV" to read "title II". Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Members of the Senate, very briefly, all the amendment would do would be to transform the Proxmire amendment, which eliminates legislative salary increases into an amendment which would eliminate sal- ary increases for the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the Govern- ment. It keeps intact the classified em- ployees' salary increases. It seems to me there ought to be a choice offered to the Senate. The choice the Proxmire amendment presently of- fers is really no choice at all. If we were to support the Proxmire amendment we would be singling ourselves and our staff members out for a discriminatory type program as against the executive and judicial sides of the Government. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 15230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE If my amendment is adopted. the Proxmire amendment will be before us to vote on. and we can decide whether we wish to take care of only the classi- fied employees or whether we wish to take care of the employees of all branches of the Government. That is the choice we would have. Mr. MANSPIELD. In other words, everybody would be stricken out except the voters. Mr. MILLER. May I say to the ma- jority leader that I have no intention of doing anything like that with my amend- ment. Mr. MANSFIELD. That is what it amounts to. Mr. MILLER. To evaluate my amend- ment in that fashion is very much to oversimplify the problem. Mr. MANSFIELD. It takes in mil- lions and leaves out a few thousand. Mr. MILLER. That oversimplifies the point. The Proxmire amendment in its present form singles out the legislative branch. I do not think that is the choice we ought to be offering the Senate. It seems to me we ought to be given the choice of taking care of the classified employees and nobody else, or taking care of the classified employees and not singling out the legislative, judicial, and executive branch. Mr. MANSFIELD. I agree in that re- spect. If we are to do anything with re- spect to Congress, we had better do it to the other branches of the Government, too. Mr. MILLER. The majority leader now states my proposal exactly. I am happy that he gets the Point. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President. while the amendment can be excused on the ground that, if we are going to strike against Congress we should also strike at those employees in the executive and judicial branch of the Government who are supposed to use their brainpower to make plans in an atomic age for a future that we hope America can have. I think we would be killing the very thought be- hind the kind of bill President Kennedy and President Johnson, and most stu- dents of government, have urged us to pass. The crisis in the executive branch of this great Government in the atomic age, with a hundred billion dollar budget, with a burgeoning population, automa- tion, and all the various problems that are on our doorstep, must be solved by the best minds money can obtain. Surely; we would save some money. We weand save $20 million out of a cost of $556 minion, by taking this step. We would reduce the prospect of having the best people that can be found in the field to fill the jobs in the executive de- partment. Yes, we will appeal to a lower class of people to run for Congress. be- cause they will know it will not be pos- sible to manage and pay expenses and Put anything aside to educate their chil- dren. They will know there will be no opportunity to hold their heads up in re- spectability in carrying on the duties of office, as we are expected to carry them on by our constituents back home. Four million one hundred thousand dollars is the cost of congressional pay. That is 0.7 percent of the total cost. We will pay the legislative employees and other officers $9,600,000. In this great Government of ours, with more than 2 million employees trying to supply the services, including the military and other needs, only 536 Members of Congress plus 2 other officers are elected. That is the total elective complement of our great democracy: 435 Members of the House, 100 Members of the Senate, plus the Pres- ident and Vice President. The rest are all appointed. Is it worth anything to preserve, to attract, to try to bring into the elective system men of competence? Perhaps we do not need them; but I have never found that a good salary, a salary that would help a man to pay his expenses and live in respectability, denied quali- fied persons the opportunity to run for office. Why did the people support the Re- organization Act of 1046? It was be- cause they wanted Coziness to amount to something. They wanted to have competent persons working on our staffs, not retired mail carriers acting RS secretaries for the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency, or an inexperienced person from back home acting as the secretary or chief staff member of the most important committee of Congress, the Committee on Foreign Relations. No: they wanted good staffs, so they di- rected Congress to pay to the staffs of Members of Congress salaries equivalent to those paid in private business. That Is what we did. That is why Congress has been measuring up to its respon- sibility in trying to meet the challenge or the new problems of today. We have been able to have just as good members of the staffs working and assisting us to pass legislation as the executive offices downtown have in administering it. Let us not downgrade our staffs. The majority leader and the minority leader have described Congress as the people's branch of the Government. We will get what we pay for. Members of Congress must have decent salaries if they are to pay their own expenses in entertaining friends at lunch. In trying to maintain the Positions we are ex- pected to maintain as Senators, both here and at home, we must have a suit- able standard of living. We try to pro- vide for education, to maintain our libraries, to have the things we need. I think this Is worth bringing the pay of Members of Congress up to parity. Parity was not set for us by a committee or by Congress or by members of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice of either House. /t was set after a careful study and as a result of executive leadership. It has been urged moon us by both President Kennedy and Presi- dent Johnson. We have tried to establish parity with the Federal judges. Our pay will come out even with theirs at $30,000. We will have parity with the under secretaries of the departments at $30,000. If Senators will look through the bill, they will see that we have tried to establish parity of service and qualifications. We provide a higher salary for Cabinet members; but historically Members of Congress have been linked with the pay July 1 of Federal judges, which have beeia less than that paid to the Cabinet. Let us not downgrade the branch of the Government in which we servr?., be- cause millions of people throughout the world would be willing to give their right arms to have a legislative body such as ours?staffed with personnel such a:; that which selves the Senate and the House. I hope the Senate will defeat the Miller amendment and the Proxmire amend- ment and will then move on to pars the pay bill, which has been so long in com- ing to us. Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Iowa would agree with much of what the Sen- ator from Oklahoma has said, but I can- not quite understand why he made the statement he has made against the Miller amendment. Mr. MONRONEY. I am agains; the Proxmire amendment. I would be forced to say that if we adopted the Proxmire amendmeat, we would be doing ourselves a disservice by downgrading ourselves far below the current going rate. We have praised the value of the staffs in th ex- ecutive department. I do not choose to vote for the amend- ment of the Senator from Iowa, because I am against the Proxmire amendment. I favor the bill as it has been reported. It is a good bill. It will serve the coun- try well. I think the civil service em- ployees are entitled to a pay increase. So are the executives and other officials who have not had a raise for 10 years, while the other employees have had a 30- or 35-percent increase. The schedule works out fairly. I shall have to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Iowa because I do not believe in cutting out the very heart of the bill. Mr. MII.T.FR. Why not support the Miller amendment to the Proxmire amendment and then vote against the Proxmire amendment as amended If the Senator does not do that, he wil not afford the Senate a decent choice on which to vote. If the Proxmire amend- ment carries, the Senator would be de- meaning the legislative branch as against the executive and judicial branches. If the Senator votes for the Miller amend- ment, he will not have to demean him- self in that way. Mr. MONRONEY. Then I would have voted for an amendment that would de- stroy at least a great portion of the bill, the portion that would attract efficent, effective executives. I shall not vote for this amendment. If I am to be against the Proxmire amendment, I must also be against the amendment of the Senator from Iowa. Mr. MITJ.ER. The Senator from Oklahoma would have plenty of op- portunity to vote against the principle he is talking about, once my amendment and the Proxmire amendment were adopted. I am trying to give the Sen- ate a reasonably fair choice as to whether it wants to provide a general salary increase for executive, legislative, and judicial officers, along with the clas- sified civil service, or wants to let those three groups stand by themselves in a separate bill. That is a fair choice. But under the Proxmire amendment, Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15231 unless it is modified by my amendment, the Senate will not have a fair choice. Mr. MONRONEY. I should say that the Senator's amendment, if adopted, would put on record many Senators as being against an excessive pay bill. Therefore, they would be asked to vote for the Proxmire amendment, because the funds for the brainpower we are hoping to attract to the legislative and executive branches would have been stricken from the bill. Mr. MILLER. I intend to vote for the Miller amendment as a modification of the Proxmire amendment. I think I could in clear conscience vote against the Proxmire amendment as modified. I think the Senator from Oklahoma could vote for my amendment to give the Senate an adequate choice, and then turn around and vote against the Prox- mire amendment, as modified. The PRESIDING aeviCER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Iowa. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, on this amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call te roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED- MONDSON], the Senator from North Caro- lina [Mr. ERvm] , the Senator from Ari- zona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. FELL], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RnacoFF] , and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAyn], the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], the Senator from Connect- icut [Mr. RIBICOFF], and the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON] would each vote "nay." Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BoGas] is absent to attend the funeral of a relative. The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FoNc], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are necessarily absent. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] would vote "nay." The result was announced?yeas 21, nays 64, as follows: [No. 459 Leg.] YEAS-21 Bennett Byrd, Va. Cannon Church Cotton Curtis Dominick Ellender Jordan, Idaho Lausche McClellan Mechem Miller Mundt Robertson Simpson Smathers Talmadge Thurmond , Williams, Del. Young, Ohio Aiken Allott Anderson Bartlett Beall Bible Brewster Burdick Byrd, W. Va. Carlson Case Clark Cooper Dirksen Dodd Douglas Eastland Fulbright Goldwater Gore Gruening Hart Bayh Boggs Edmondson Engle Ervin NAYS-64 Hartke Hickenlooper Hill Holland Kruska Humphrey Inouye Javits Johnston Jordan, N.C. Keating Kuchel Long, Mo. Long, La. Magnuson Mansfield McGee McGovern McIntyre McNamara Metcalf Monroney NOT VOTING-15 Fong Hayden Jackson Kennedy McCarthy Morse Aiken Morton Anderson Moss Bartlett Muskie Beall Nelson Bennett Neuberger Bible Pastore Brewster Prouty Byrd, W. Va. Proxmire Carlson Randolph Case Russell Clark Scott Cooper Smith Dirksen Sparkman Dodd Stennis Eastland Symington Eulbright Tower Goldwater Walters Gruening Williams, N.J. ? Young, N. Dak. Bayh Boggs Edmondson Engle Pearson Ervin Pell Ribicoff Saltonstall Yarborough So Mr. MILLER'S amendment was re- jected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE]. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the Clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED- MONDSON], the Senator from North Caro- lina [Mr. Emig], the Senator from Ari- zona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JAcicsoN], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] , the Sen- ator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YAR- BoRouGH] are absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], and the Sena- tor from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Is- land [Mr. FELL], the Senator from Con- necticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON] would each vote "nay." Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator frbm Delaware [Mr. Boccs] is absent to attend the funeral of a relative. The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] , and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are necessarily ab- sent. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] would vote "nay." The result was announced?yeas 32, nays 53, as follows: [No. 160 Leg.] YEAS-32 Hartke Robertson Holland Simpson Hruska Smathers Keating Stennis Lausche Symington McGovern Talmadge Mechem Thurmond Moss Williams, Del. Mundt Young, N. Dale. Prouty Young, Ohio Proxmire Allott Burdick Byrd, Va. Cannon Church Cotton Curtis Dominick Douglas Ellender Gore NAYS-53 Hart Hickenlooper Hill Humphrey Inouye Javits Johnston Jordan, N.C. Jordan, Idaho Kuchel Long, Mo. Long, La. Magnuson Mansfield McCarthy McClellan McGee McIntyre NOT VOTING-15 McNamara Metcalf Miller Monroney Morse Morton Muskie Nelson Neuberger Pastore Randolph Scott Smith Sparkman Tower Walters Williams, N.J. Fong Hayden Jackson Kennedy Pearson Pell Ribicoff Russell Saltonstall Yarborough So Mr. PROXMIRE'S amendment was rejected. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I announce that my colleague, the junior Senator from Washington [Mr. JACK- SON], is unavoidably detained on official business. But if he had been present he would have voted "nay" on the last amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I call up my amendment. The cosponsors to the amendment are Mr. CURTIS, Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. Thus- MOND, and Mr. BENNETT. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] proposes amendment No. 1078, reading as fol- lows: At the appropriate place insert a new section as follows: Nothwithstanding any other provision of this bill the effective date of any Increase on any salary of $20,000 or over, shall be the first day of the first month after the close of a fiscal year with a balanced Fed- eral budget. ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO TOMORROW AT 11 A.M. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11 o'clock to- morrow morning. The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. There will be no further votes tonight. COMMITTEE MEETING DURING SENATE SESSION TOMORROW On request by Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on Armed Services was authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to- morrow. CONFERENCE ON ROLE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE WAR ON POVERTY Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the so- called Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 or war on poverty legislation is before the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare. It will be considered next week by the full committee. I shall have some Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R0005000501301-9- 15232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE amendments to the legislation at that time. In the meantime. I should like to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that at my instance, there -was a conference on the role of the Federal Government in the war on poverty, called at New York University on May 11, 1964. The conferees were headed by cochair- man Dr. Miguel A. de Capriles, dean of the School of Law of New York Univer- sity, and Dr. Alex Rosen, dean of the School of Social Work of New York Uni- versity. The conferees included some of the most distinguished men and women in the country, men and women from great foundations, governmental agen- cies, and universities interested in this particular field. Mr. President, my office has developed a digest from the stenographic transcript of the ideas and concepts which were developed there. I believe that this in- formation from so many experts is worthy of the consideration of every Senator both now and when we finally come to consider this very important measure. As it develops in a very inter- esting way the lines of an editorial in the New York Times of June 24, 1964, headed "War On Poverty," I ask unani- mous consent that in the body of the RECORD there may appear the digest of the conference to which I have referred. followed by the editorial from the New York Times of June 24. There being no objection, the digest and editorial were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DIGEST OE CONFERENCE ON THE HOLE OE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ref THE WAR ON POV- ERTY, NEW YORK I..INHTERsiTy, MONDAY. MAY 11. 1964 CONFEREES Senator JACOB K. Javers and staff, Mr, Al- len Lesser. Cochairmen of the conference: Dr. Miguel A. deCapriles. dean, School of Law. New York University: Dr. Alex Rosen, dean, School of Social Work, New York University. Others: George Brager, Mobilization for Youth, New York City. Erse H. Poston, State division for youth. Anne M. Montero, city commission on human rights, Benjamin H. Lyndon. dean, School of So- cial Welfare, State University of New York, Buffalo, N.Y. James R. Dumpson, department of welfare. New York City. Clark Tibbitts, U.S. Department of Health, Education. and Welfare, Washington, D.C. John J. Hurley, Bureau of Family Services, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. Father Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, D.J., Ford- ham University, Bronx, N.Y. Henry H. Foster, Jr., professor, School of Law. New York University. Winslow Carlton, group health insurance, New York city. John P. Walsh, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Ben Zimmerman, mayor's commission for youth, Syracuse, N.Y. Peter Kasius, State department of social welfare. Willard Heckel, dean, Rutgers School of Law, New Brunswick, N.J. Felician Foitman. New York State School of International Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Edward W. Foss, Department of Agricul- tural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca. N.Y. Marjorie Buckholz, Graduate School of So- cial Work, New York University, New York City. Melvin Hermann, Mobilisation for Youth, New York City. Alexander Allen, Urban League of Greater New York. New York City. James E. McCarthy, Mobilization for Youth, New York City. John M. Martin, Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y. Edward Fettelberg, office of the president of the council, New York City. Elms L. Greenwood, National Council of Churches. New York City. Bernard Lander, professor, Hunter College, New York City. William F. Walsh, mayor, Syracuse, N.Y. The conference directed its attention to three major areas of the war on poverty? youth, unemployed workers, and the aged? and their relationship to the Economic Op- portunity Act of 1964. ?patting the discussion, Senator Javrrs hinds the points that the war on poverty should be regarded as a long-term war which requires bipartisan support, that it calls for a selective approach rarther than a one-shot omnibus attack, that it should be waged Jointly with State and local governments. and that it La more than a one-mart job and should be guided by a board of strategy with an executive director which would en- list the cooperation of civic and community leaders and organizations. He further em- phasized that the unemployed should not be lumped with the endemic poor, and that in any comprehensive program there should be provision for elose coordination with num- erous existing Federal program. Dr. Melvin Hermann, who heads the youth and work program of Mobilization for Youth, made a sharp distinction between youth un- employment and youth poverty, stressing that. they are different problems. Among the former there are those who are unemployable, those who are employable but have no jobs, and those who are underemployed because suitable jobs for their capabilities are not available. Reduction of the school dropout rate, though highly desirable, Is no panacea for youth unemployment. Dr. Hermann said, adding that graduation from high school is no guarantee of employability. Worth ex- ploring, however, Is the possibility of extend- ing school counseling and guidance services for youth beyond 18 or 19 and until they are placed in jobs. Related to employability is the health of youth and Dr. Hermann said that In I group of 100 youths under 21 in his program about $0 percent had serious medical problems. He emphatically ap- proved continued heavy involvement of local and State agencies in Federal program of vo- cational education, and raised a number of questions arising from training programs in which allowances are paid, which directly affect local welfare program considerations. Turning to title I. part A, of the Economic Opportunity Act, Dr. Hermann asked how we can recruit and train the personnel need- ed to man this and other projected programs its light of the present extreme shortage of professional personnel. He described as a -frightening notion" the prospect of turn- ing young recruits over to forest rangers for training and teaching. He also asked how we could insure that youth are selected and guided into appropriate programs; who would take the responsibility of directing youth who already had experienced long periods of failure, into programs where they could suc- ceed. Answering a question by Dean de Capriles on the problem of providing jobs, Dr. Her- mann warned that there was a danger of placing too much emphasis on motivation without assurance that lobs would be avail- July .1 able for the youths who were being encour- aged in this way. In the discussion tlut followed, Commissioner Dumpson added thf,t many youth were rejected for jobs because they were Negroes or Puerto Ricans, and Winslow Carlton said that the youth's ex- perience of failure was often reinforced ty the fact that his parents had the same ex- perience, thus making this a problem of tie whole community rather than of just one in- dividual. Peter Kasius of the New York State De- partment of Social Welfare, commented en the need to involve State and local agencies intimately with the Federal programs 30 that there could be continuity after the Federal authorization had ended. Senator Javers said that the consent of the State must be obtained in any relationship b?- tween the Federal Government and local go-7- ernments. Commissioner Dumpson cited the risks in this limitation and suggested th it where the State refuses to act, the Federal Government then be given authority to pro- ceed without its consent. The discussion then touched on possibili- ties of rehabiltating rejected draftees and holding the draft examination at 18 years of age rather 22 or older as at prese:it in order to clear up health and training problems. Professor Lander cited objectio as to using the draft or the Department of De- fense because it was not set up to become an education.il institution. Both George Brager, of the Mobilization for Youth, and Dean Rosen questioned whether industry would have jobs for these young.people after they had been trained. Professor Lander pointed out Hat in view of the development of automation., education now had the me- sponsibility of projecting its training pro- gram for jobs of tomorrow rather than those now available. In this connection in- dustry would have to cooperate and come up with some indication of its future needs. Dr. Hermann said schooling had to be made relevant?just to "upgrade the unemployed" was not enouth: and Mrs. Anne Montero, of the city commission on human rights, xi; g- gested a national census or inventory of un- filled jobs. Winslow Carlton, of Group Health Insur- ance, summarized the problem of poverty as it applies to the aged. He said there was practically nothing in the legislation for the older citizens, and cited the general /Iced in this group for more income, including an inerease in sccial security benefits and old- age assistance payments. An income survey in 1962 for those over 65 showed a median income for nonmarred persons of $1.130 per year, and $2.875 for married coupes. Families headed by a per- son of 65 or more made up one-third of all the families counted as poor on toe basis of the 1964 annual report of the Council of Economic Advisers. In the OAA program where the range of benefits was from $31 a month in Mississippi to $111 in New Ycrk, the problem was how to increase benefits in the poorer St des. Another prablem area defined by Mr. Carl- ton concerned workers between 50 and 65, and the diff.cultles they face when pl int closings and other factors lead to their un- employment. Not unrelated to the general problem is tie fact that many in this group have children under 18. The relevance of a Federal program of health care :nsurance for the aged in this problem was also stressed by Mr. Carlton, who touched on some of its economic con- sequences on retired persons. Dean Ben- jamin H. Lyndon suggested the possibilit:r of developing a single package of assistance in- corporating all current programs of aid to the aging. Senator Javrrs emphasized the essential role of the local community in assuring suc- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15175 under certain circumstances, such as when an impending election is imminent and a State's election machinery is already in progress, equitable considerations might justify a court in withholding the granting of immediately effective relief in a legislative apportionment case, even though the existing apportionment scheme was found invalid. In awarding or withholding immediate relief, a court is entitled to and should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of State election laws, and should act and rely upon general equitable principles. With respect to the timing of relief, a court can reasonably en- deavor to avoid a disruption of the election process which might result from requiring precipitate changes that could make unrea- sonably or embarrassing demands on a State in adjusting to the requirements of the court's decree." The Court expressly approved the approach of the court in Alabama, which it commend- ed for having correctly recognized that legis- lative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determina- tion, and that judicial relief becomes appro- priate only when a legislature fails to reap- portion according to Federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so. The Court especially commended "the proper ju- dicial restraint" shown by the Alabama court in not jumping in too quickly. In the New York case the Court simply left It to the lower court to determine "whether, because of the imminence of (the 1964) elec- tion and in order to give the New York Leg- islature an opportunity to fashion a consti- tutionally valid legislative apportionment plan, it would be desirable to permit the 1964 election of legislators to be conducted pursu- ant to the existing provisions, or whether, under the circumstances, the effectuation of appellants' right to a properly weighted voice in the election of State legislators should not be delayed beyond the 1964 elec- tion." As noted above, in the Colorado case the Court did treat the availability of initiative and referendum as a reason for which a court "might be justified in temporarily refraining from the issuance of injunctive relief in an apportionment case in order to allow for re- sort to an available political remedy." In the Colorado case, the actions had been originally filed in March and July of 1962. The three-judge court gave its opinion on August 10, 1962, holding that, in view of the immediate imminence of an election, no change would be reqnired at that time. At that same time two initiative proposals were pending to deal with apportionment. The Supreme Court held that "because of the im- minence of the November 1962 election and the fact that two initiated proposals relating to legislative apportionment would be voted on by the State's electorate at that election, the district court properly stayed its hand and permitted the 1962 election of legislators to be conducted pursuant to the existing statutory scheme." The Court thereupon remanded the matter for the district court to decide whether the constitutionally required system under its decision "can practicably be effectuated in 1964." Conclusion as to timing: Taking the opinions as a whole, we conclude first, that our legislature must be given a fair chance to deal with this problem; and second, that in view of the imminence of the 1964 elec- tion, that fair chance comes in 1965. Find- ing the proper solution will take the very best thought of which the legislature is capable, and it is too soon to know what that solution will be. M. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. We cannot possibly solve these problems prior to the 1964 election. The candidates are already in the field and we could not conceivably get a fair and sound constitu- tional amendment drafted and offered in time for this year. In light of all the cir- cumstances, we recommend against proposing a special session at this time but rather rec- ommend that we proceed affirmatively, as suggested in the two next paragraphs, as evidence of our complete good faith. For,. tunately, article 21, section 1, of our con- stitution permits us to amend our constitu- tion by special election; and if it appears necessary to have such we can do so. Grade 1 2 3 GS-1 $3, 386 $3, 500 $3, 615 GS-2 3, 680 3, 805 3, 930 OS-3 4,005 4, 140 4, 275 GS-4 4,480 4, 630 4, 780 GS-5 5,000 5, 166 5,330 05 -8 5,105 5, 690 3,871 GS-7 6,050 6, 250 6,430 08-8 6,630 6,850 7,070 (18-9 7, 220 7,463 7, 710 GS-10 7,900 8,170 8,440 GS-11 8, 650 8,945 9, 240 GS-12.. 10,250 10,605 10,080 GS-13 12,075 12,496 12, 916 GS-14 14,170 14,650 16,150 GS-15 36,460 17,030 17,600 08-16 18,936 19, 690 20,245 GS-17 21,445 22, 195 22,845 GS-18 24, 300 2.. The present work on congressional re- apportionment should be pressed to comple- tion at full speed. At the earliest possible date, this report should be published. 3. The president of the senate, the speaker of the house, and the Governor should meet immediately to establish a procedure to pre- pare recommendations for a proper adjust- ment to the decisions in the light of the history and needs a our own State and our own people. Tentatively, we recommend a special joint commission. We can best demonstrate that we do not need to have a three-judge court do our thinking for us by doing it for ourselves. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If not, morn- ing business is closed; and, without ob- jection, the Chair lays before the Senae the unfinished business. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (HR. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes, which had been reported from the Com- mittee on Post Office and Civil Service, with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That this Act may be cited as the "Gov- ernment Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964". TITLE I-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SYSTEMS Short title SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the "Federal Employees Salary Act of 1964". Classification Act employees SEC. 102. (a) Section 603(b) of the Classi- fication Act of 1949, as amended (76 Stat. 843; 5 U.S.C. 1113(b)), is amended to read as follows: an election in 1966, "(b) The compensation schedule for the General Schedule shall be as follows: Per annum rates and steps 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $3. 730 $3, 845 $3, 960 $4, 076 $4,180 $9, 305 $4, 420 4,055 4, 180 4, 305 4, 430 4,555 4, 680 4, 805 4,410 4,545 4,680 4,815 4,950 5,085 5, 220 4,030 5, OSO 5,230 3, 380 3, 530 5,680 5,810 5,495 6,660 5,825 5,900 6,133 6,320 6,485 6,050 6,245 6,430 6, 615 6,800 6,988 7, 170 6, 650 6,850 7,080 7,230 7,450 7, 660 7,850 7,200 7,310 7.730 7,950 8, 170 8,390 8, 610 7, 955 8,200 8,445 8,680 8,938 9,180 8,425 8,710 8,980 9,250 9, 520 9, 790 10,000 10,330 9, 535 9, 830 10, 125 10, 420 10, 715 11,010 13,305 11,315 11,670 12,025 12,380 12,735 13,090 13,445 13,335 13, 765 14, 175 14, 595 16,015 15, 435 15, 855 18,640 16,130 16,020 17,110 17,600 18,090 18,580 18,170 38,740 19,310 19,880 20,480 21,020 21,590 20,900 21,553 22, 210 22,805 23,520 24,175 23, 695 24,445 (b) Except as provided in subsection (d). of section 604 of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962, the rates of basic compensation of officers and employees to whom the com- pensation schedule set forth in subsection (a) of this section applies shall be initially adjusted as of the effective date of this sec- tion, as follows: (1) If the officer or employee is receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this section at one ? of the rates of a grade .in the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amend- ed, he shall receive a rate of basic compensa- tion at the corresponding rate in effect on and after such date. (2) If the officer or employee is receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate be- tween two rates of a grade in the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, he shall receive a rate of basic com- pensation at the higher of the two cor- responding rates in effect on and after such date. (3) If the officer or employee is receiving basic compensation immediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate in ex- cess of the maximum rate for his grade, he shall receive (A) the maximum rate for his grade in the new schedule, or (B) his existing rate of basic compensation if such existing rate is higher. (4) If the officer or employee, immediately prior to the effective date of this section, is receiving, pursuant to section 2(b) (4) of the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of 1955, an existing aggregate rate of com- pensation determined under section 203(b) of the Act of September 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 1111), plus subsequent increases authorized by law, he shall receive an aggregate rate of compensation equal to the sum of his exist- ing aggregate rate of compensation, on the day preceding the effective date of this sec- tion, plus the amount of increase made by this section in the maximum rate of his grade, until (1) he leaves his position, or (ii) he is entitled to receive aggregate compensa- tion at a higher rate by reason of the oper- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ation of this Act or any other provision of law; but, when such position becomes va- cant, the aggregate rate of compensation of any subsequent appointee thereto shall be fixed in accordance with applicable provisions of law. Subject to clauses (1) and (11) of the immediately preceding sentence of this paragraph, the amount of the increase pro- vided by this section shall be held and con- sidered for the purpose of section 208(b) of the Act of September 1, 1954, to con- stitute a part of the extorting rate of com- pensation of the employee. (5) If the officer or employee is In a po- sition in grade 16 or 17 of the Genera/ Sched- ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, to which be was promoted on or after the first day of hie first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 1264, and if he holds such position, or another position in the same grade, on the effective ,clate of this section, his rate of basic compensation shall be adjusted, as of such effective date, to that rate of basic compensation to which tie would have been entitled if the com- pensation schedule in subsection (a) of this section had been in effect on the date of his promotion. Sec. 103. (a) Section 801 of the Classifica- tion Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 1181), relating to new appointments, Is amended to reed as follows: "Sec. 801. All new appointments shall be made at the minimum rate of the appropriate grade, except that in accordance with regula- tions prescribed by the Commission which provide for such considerations' as the candi- date's existing salary, unusually high or unique qualifications, or a special need of the Government for his services, the head of any department may. with the approval of the Commission in each specific case, ap- point individuals to positions in grade 13 and above of the General Schedule at such rate or rates above the minimum rate of the appropriate grade as the Commission may authorize for this purpose.". (b) Section 505(b) of the Classification Act of 1249, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105(b)), relating to the limitation on numbers of positions in grades 18. 17, and 18 of the Gen- eral Schedule of such Act, is amended by in- serting "(I)" after the words "In addition to", and by striking out "which may be placed in such grades" and infesting In lieu thereof ", and positions placed under this Act pursuant to rection 209 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964. which may be placed in such grades, and (11) two hundred and forty examiner positions under section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat. 244: 5 U.S.C. 1010) which may be placed in grade 16 and nine such positions which may be placed In grade 17". (c) Section 604(d) (3) of the Federal Esn- ployees Pay Act of 1945. as amended (5 U.S.C. 944(c) (3)), la amended to read as follows: "(3) All rates shall be computed to the nearest cent, counting one-half cent and over as a whole cent.". Postal fled service employees SEC. 104. Section 1 of title 39, United States Code, Is amended by striking out the period at the end of such section and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the following: " 'revenue unit' means that amount of rev- enue of a post office from mall and special service transactions which is equal to the average sum of postal rates and fees received by the Department during the fiscal year for 1,000 pieces of originating mall and special service transactions determined In accord- ance with [section 2831 of this title.". SEC. 105. Section 702 of title 32, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "I 702. Classes of post offices "(a) Effective at the beginning of each fiscal year the Postmaster General shall di- vide post offices Into four classes on the ban% of the revenue Units of each office for the second preceding fiscal year. He shall place in the first class those poet offices having 950 or more revenue Unita. He shall place in the second clam those post offices hav- ing 190 or more revenue unite, but fewer than 950 revenue units. He shall place In the third class those post offices having 36 or more revenue units, but fewer than 100 revenue units. He shall place in the fourth class those post offices having fewer than 38 revenue units. "(b) The Postmaster General shall exclude from the revenue credited to a post office for the purposes of this section money received at that office for? "(1) setting meters for patrons beyond the area served by the office unless authorized by the Department; " 2) stamps, stamped envelopes, and postal cards sold In large or unusual quan- tities to be used in mailing matter at other offices; and "(9) stamps, stamped envelopes, and postal cards sold for mailing matter diverted from other offices and mailing of matter so diverted without /damps affixed. "(c) Whenever unusual conditions pervall at a poet office of the fourth class, the Post- master General may advance such office to the appropriate class based on his estimate of the number of revenue units which the office will have during the succeeding twelve months. Any office so advanced need not be relegated to a lower class before the end of the second firmed year after the advance- ment. At that time, the office shall be as- signed to the appropriate class in accord- ance with subsections (a) and (b) of this, section." Sec. 108. Section '704 of title 39, United State Code, Is amended by deleting "of the first, second, or third claw" appearing there- in, and inserting in lieu thereof "(other than one for which the postmaster furnishes quarters, equipment, and fixtures on an allowance basis)". Sec. 107. Subsection (b) (1) of section 2102 of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "(1) for poet offices at which the post- master does not furnish quarters on an allowance basic". Sec. 108. (a) Section 3801 of title 30, United States Code, is amended by insert- ing a new subsection (c) following subsec- tion (b) as follows: "(c) The Postraaeter General shall deter- mine and, effective at the beginning of the first pay period in each calendar year, shall adjust the rankings of all positions for which the number of annual revenue units of a post office or its class Is a relevant factor of the ranking, using the revenue unite of the preceding fiscal year and the class in which the office will be placed at the begin- ning of the next decal year. The Postmaster General also may &One rankings of such positions at other times of the year based upon substantial changes in service condi- tions.". (b) Chapter 45 of title 39, United States Code, Is amended as follows: (1) In subsection (c) of section 3513? (A) Change the catchline to read "POST. OETICE CLERK (KP-4i": and (B) Add the following new sentence to the end of paragraph (I): 'Mils office has fewer than 190 revenue units annually.". (2) In subsection (e) of section 3516? (A) Change the catchline to read "POST- MASTER (KP-181": (B) Delete "third class" in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi- mately $1.700" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "approximately 40 revenue unite annually". (3) In subsection (b) of section 3517? I (A) Change the catchline to read "POST- MASTER. (Ks-so)"; July 1 (B) Delete "third class" in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi- mately $4,700" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "approximately 110 revenue units annually". (4) In subsection (b) of section 3518? (A) Change the catchline to read "Pour- MASTER. (KP.-22)"; (B) Delete "third class" in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete "annual receipts of approd- mately $8,000" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap- proximately 140 revenue units annually" (5) In subsection (b) of section 351G? (A) Change the catchline to read "fi 8- SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-24 ) "; and (B) Delete "annual receipts of approxi- mately 083,000" in the second sentence of paragraph (le and insert in lieu thereof "approximately 1,490 revenue units aa- nually". (13) In subtraction (c) of section 3519? (A) Change the catchline to read "soar- MASTER. (KP-245)"; (B) Delete "second class" in the first se.a- tence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete "annual receipts of approel- mately $16,060" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and Insert In lieu thereof "approximately 380 revenue units annually". (7) In subsection (b) of section 3520? (A) Change the catchline to read "rose- MASTER. (KP-27 I "; (B) Delete -first class" in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi- mately $83,000" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and Insert in Lieu thereof "ap- proximately 1,490 revenue unite annually". (8) In subsection (b) of section 3521? (A) Change the catchline to read "Posy- MASTER. (KP-25) (B) Delete "first class" appearing in tee first sentence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete 'annual receipts of $129,00C" In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "approximately 3,0e0 revenue units annually". (9) In subsection (b) of section 3522? (A) Change the catchline to read "P061- MASTER. (KP-3 r) "; (B) Delete "first class' in the first sentence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete 'annual receipts of $314.000" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 7,450 revenue units annually". (10) In subsection (b) of section 3523-- (A) Change the catchline to read "POST. MASTER. (KII-3 3 ) "; (B) Delete "first class" appearing In ths first sentence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete the second sentence of para- graph (1) and insert In lieu thereof; "This office has approximately 110 employees, ap- proximately 14,350 revenue unite annually, IS government-owned vehicle units, one classified station and 42 carrier routes with- in its jurisdiction.". (11) In subsection (b) of section 3524? (A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST- ANT POSTMASTER (KE'-35)"; and (B) Delete "annual receipts of $2,700,000" In the second sentence of paragraph (1) anc. Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 64,00e revenue units annually". (12) In subsection (c) of section 3524? (A) Change the catchline to read "Powe- ll-ASTER. (KP-35 ) "; (B) Delete "first class" in the first sentence of paragraph (II; and (C) Delete "annual receipts of $1,000,000" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and Insert in lieu tlicereof "approximately 23,700 revenue units annually". (13) In subsection (a) of section 3525? (A) Change the catchline to read. "ASSLST- ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-37) "; and Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18.: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15177 (B) Delete "annual receipts of $8,460,000" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 200,000 revenue units annually". (14) In subsection (b) of section 35207-, (A) Change the catchline to read "POST- MASTER. (KP-OS)"; (B) Delete "first class" in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and (C) Delete "annual receipts of $2,700,000" In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 64,000 revenue units annually". (15) In subsection (a) of section 3526- (A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST. ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-39) "; and (B) Delete "annual receipts of $16,900,000" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "approximately 400,000 revenue units annually". (16) In subsection (b) of section 3526- (A) Change the catchline to read "posr- MASTER. (14P-40)"; (B) Delete "first class" in the first sen- tence of paragraph (1); and (0) Delete "annual receipts of $4,470,000" in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "approximately 106,000 revenue units annually". (17) In subsection (b) of section 3527- CO . - - - _ n, CO ,1,0 00 0 0 0 Co c, 0 cn cit crt 0 0 0 Class 2 18,295-18, 930 $20, 200 $20, 835 $21, 470 $22, 105 Class 3 . 14,860 15,375 16, 405 10,020 17, 435 17, 950 Class 4 12,075 12, 495 13, 335 13, 755 14, 175 14, 595 Class 5 9, 945 10, 290 10,080 11, 325 11,070 12,015 Class 8 8, 295 8, 580 9, 150 9, 435 9, 720 10,005 Class 7 7,010 7, 245 7, 715 7,950 8, 185 8,420 Class 8 6,050 6, 250 6-650 6, 850 7,050 7, 260", SEC. 120. Subsection (a) of section 416 of "(a) There shall be ten classes of Foreign The per annum salaries of such staff officers such Act (22 U.S.C. 070(a)) is amended to Service staff officers and employees, referred and employees within each class shall be as read as follows: to hereafter as staff officers and employees. follows: "Class 1 $14,860 $15,375 $15, 890 $16,405 $16, 920 817,435 $17,960 $18,485 $18,980 $19, 495 Class 2 12,075 12,405 12,915 13,335 13,705 14,175 14,595 15, 015 15,435 15, 856 Class 3 9,945 10, 290 10, 635 10,980 11,325 11,670 12, 015 12,360 12,705 13,050 Class 4 8,295 8, 580 8,865 9, 150 9,435 9,720 10,005 10, 290 10,575 10, 860 Class 5 7,480 7,735 7, 990 8,245 8, 500 8,755 9, 010 9,265 9, 520 9, 776 Class 6 6, 765 6,980 7, 205 7,430 7,655 7,880 8, 105 8,300 8,155 8, 780 Class 7 6, 205 6,410 6, 615 6, 820 7,021 7,236 7, 4,35 7,040 7,845 8, 050 Class 8 5, 400 6, 675 5,860 6,045 0,230 6,415 8,800 6, 785 6, 970 7, 155 Class 9 5,010 6, 175 0,340 6, 505 5, 670 5,835 6,000 6, 165 6, 330 6, 405 Class 10 4,480 4, 630 4, 780 4,930 5, 080 5,230 5,380 5, 530 5,680 5, 630". SEC. 121. Foreign Service officers, Reserve officers and Foreign Service staff officers and employees who are entitled to receive basic compensation immediately prior to the effec- tive date of this section at one of the rates provided by section 412 or 415 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, shall receive basic com- pensation, on and after such effective date, at the rate of their class determined to be appropriate by the Secretary of State. Agricultural stabilization and conservation county committee employees SEC. 122. The rates of compensation of per- sons employed by the county committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b) ) shall be increased by amounts equal, as nearly as may be prac- ticable, to the increases provided by section 102 of this Act for corresponding rates of compensation in the appropriate schedule or scale of pay. Miscellaneous provisions SEC. 123. Section 504 of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 ('76 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C. 1173) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(d) The rate of basic compensation, es- tablished under this section, and received by any officer or employee immediately prior to the effective date of a statutory increase in the compensation schedules of the salary systems specified in subsection (a) shall be initially adjusted on the effective date of such new compensation schedules in accord- ance with conversion rules and regulations prescribed by the President or by such agency or agencies as he may designate." SEC. 124. Subsection (b) of the first section of the Act entitled "An Act to provide retire- ment, clerical assistants, and free mailing privileges to former Presidents of the United States, and for other purposes", approved August 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 838; 3 U.S.C. note fol. 102), is amended by striking out "$50,- 000" and inserting in lieu thereof "665,000". Absorption of costs Sm. 125. (a) The cost of not less than 10 per centum of the aggregate amount of the increases in compensation provided by this title for the fiscal-year 1965 shall be absorbed by the departments, agencies, establishments, and corporations in the executive branch; and no amount beyond the additional sum for such compensation increases proposed in the budget for the fiscal year 1965 is author- ized to be appropriated by any provision of this Act. The total amount of such absorp- tion shall be allocated by the Bureau of the Budget among such departments, agencies, establishments, and corporations in such manner and to such extent as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget deems appro- priate in the light of their essential func- tions. (b) Pursuant to the objective of this sec- tion, heads of the executive branch activities concerned are directed to review with me- ticulous care each vacancy resulting from voluntary resignation, retirement, or death and to determine whether the duties of the position can be reassigned to other employees or whether the position can be abolished without seriously affecting the execution of essential functions. (c) Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be held or considered to require (1) the separation from the serv- ice of any individual by reduction in force or other personnel action or (2) the placing of any individual in a leave-without-pay status. TITLE II-FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE SALARIES SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964". Sze. 202. (a) Each officer or employee in or under the legislative branch of the Gov- ernment whose rate of compensation is in- creased by section 5 of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1946 shall be paid additional com- pensation in an amount equal to the greater of the following amounts, as applicable: (1) an amount equal to 31/2 per centum of his gross rate of compensation (basic com- pensation plus additional compensation au- thorized by law) in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this section plus 1 per centum of such gross rate for each whole multiple, or part of a multiple, of $500 basic compensation; or (2) an amount equal to 6 per centum of such gross rate. (b) The total annual compensation in ef- fect immediately prior to the effective date of this section of each officer or employee of the House of Representatives, whose compen- sation is disbursed by the Clerk of the House of Representatives and is not increased by reason of any other provision of this title, shall be increased by an amount which is equal to the amount of the increase provided by subsection (a) of this section in that gross rate which is nearest in amount to the total annual compensation of such officer or employee. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15180 Approved For Release-200/115/1.8_: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 4-omititssIoNAL RECORD ? SENATE (c) Each of the limitations on gross rate per thousand and gross rate per hour per person provided by applicable law on the ef- fective date of this section with respect to the folding of speeches and pamphlets for the House of Representatives shall be in- creased by 7 per centum. The amount of each increase under this subsection shall be computed to the nearest cent, counting one- half cent and over ass whole cent. (d) The additional compensation provided by this section shall be considered a part of basic compensation for the purposes of the Civil Service Retirement Act (5 17.5.C. 2251 and the following) . (e) Section 202(e) of the Legislative Re- organization Act of 1846, as amended (2 U.S.C. 72a(e) ) is amended-- (1) by striking out "$8,880" where it first appears in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof "the highest amount which, to- gether with additional compensation author- ized by law, will not exceed the maximum rate authorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended."; and (2) by striking out "$8,880" at the second place where it appears in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof "the highest amount which, together with additional compensa- tion authorized by law, will not exceed the maximum rate authorized by the Classifica- tion Act of 1949, as amended". (f) (1) This subsection is enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives with full recognition of the constitutional right of the House of Rep- resentatives to change the rule amended by this subsection at any time, in the same man- ner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the House of Representa- tives. (2) Clause 28(c) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended? (A) by striking out "$8,880" where It first appears in such clause and inserting in lieu thereof "the highest amount which, together with additional compensation authorized by law, will not exceed the maximum rate au- thorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended,"; and (B) by striking out "$8,8130" at the second place where it appears in such clause and in- serting in lieu thereof "the highest amount which, together with additional compensa- tion authorized by law, will not exceed the maximum rate authorized by the Classifica- tion Act of 1949, as amended." (g) The basic compensation a each em- ployee in the office of a Senator is hereby adjusted, effective on the effective date pre- scribed by section 501(a), to the lowest multiple of $60 which will provide a gross rate of compensation not less than the gross rate such employee was receiving immedi- ately prior thereto, except that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the case of any employee if on or before the fifteenth day following the date of en- actment of this Act, the Senator by whom such employee is employed notifies the dis- bursing office of the Senate In writing that he does not wish such provisions to apply to such employee. In any case in which, at the expiration of the time within which a Sena- tor may give notice under this subsection, such Senator is deceased such notice shall be deemed to have been given. (h) Notwithstanding the provision re- ferred to in subsection (I), the rates of gross compensation of the Secretary for the Ma- jority of the Senate, the Secretary for the Minority of the Senate, the Official Reporters of Debates of the Senate, the Parliamen- tarian of the Senate, the Senior Counsel In the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, and the Chief Clerk of the Senate are hereby increased by an amount which is equal to the amount of the increase which would be provided by subsection (a) of this section in that gross rate determined without regard to the provisions referred to in sub- section (1) of this seoaion which is nearest in amount to the total annual compensation of such officer or employee. (I) The paragraph imposing limitations on basic and gross compensation of officers and employees of the Senate appearing un- der the heading "sneers" in the Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, as amended (74 Stat. 304; Public Law 86-568), is amended by striking out "$18,880" and inserting in lieu thereof "622,845". (j) The limitation on gross rate per hour per person pr.:Aided by applicable law on the effective date of this section with respect to the folding of speeches and pamphlets for the Senate is hereby increased by 7 per centum. The amount of such increase shall be computed to the nearest cent, counting one-half cent and over as a whole cent. The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to employees whose com- pensation is subject to such limitation. ' (k) The gross rate of compensation of the Postmaster of the Senate shall be $18,420, and the gross rate of compensation of the Assistant Postmaster of the Senate shall be $14,570. The provisions of section 106 of the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1863, shall not hereafter apply to employees referred to in this subsection. Sac. 203. (a) The compensation of the Comptroller General of the United States shall be at the rate of $30.000 per annum. (b) The compensation of the Assistant Comptroller General of the United States shall be at the rate of $28.000 per annum. (c) The compensation of the General Counsel of the United States General Ac- counting Office. the Librarian of Congress, the Public Printer, and the Architect of the Capitol shall be at the rate of $26.000 per annum. (d) The compensation of the Deputy Librarian of Congress. the Deputy Public Printer, and the Assistant Architect of the Capitol shall be at the rate of $24.500 per annum. (eJ The compensation of the Second As- sistant Architect of the Capitol shall be at the rate of $22,500 per annum. (f) The compensation of the Chaplain of the House of Representatives shall be at the rate of $12,500 per annum. (g I The compensation of the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Sen- ate, and the Legisaltive Counsel of the Sen- ate shall be at the rate of $27,500 per annum. (h) The compensation of the Chaplain of the Senate shall be at the rate of $15,000 per annum. Sec. 204. Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. as amended (2 U.S.C. 31), is amended to read as follows: "(a) The compensation of Senators. Rep- resentatives in Congress. and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of $30,000 per annum each; and the compensation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be at the rate of $43,000 per annum." Sac. 205. No officer or employee subject to section 202(a) or 302(b) of this title shall receive, by reason of any provision of this title, an increase in gross rate of compensa- tion (basic compensation plus additional compensation authorized by taw), or in total annual compensation, which is in excess of the amount of the increase in basic compen- sation provided by the amendment made by section 102(a) of title I of this Act for posi- tions in grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. mar 111?TEDLIIAL EXECUTIVE SALARIES Sec. 301. This title may be cited as the "Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964". 8E0.301 There is hereby established for offices and positions to which section 303 of this title applies a baste compensation sched- ule, to be known as the "Federal Executive Salary Schedule", which shall be divided into live salary levels. July 1 Sec. 303. (a) Level I of the Federal Execu- tive Salary Schedule shall apply to the fol- lowing offices and positions, for which the ao- nual rate of basic compensation shall -ae $35,000: (1) Secretary of State. (2) Secretary of the Treasury. (3) Secretary of Defense. (4) Attorney General. (5) Postmaster General. (6) Secretary of the Interior. (7) Secretary of Agriculture. (8) Secretary of Commerce. (9) Secretary of Labor. (10) Secretary or Health, Education, and Welfare. (b) Level U of the Federal Executive Salm y Schedule shall apply to the following offices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be e30,000: (1) Deputy Secretary of Defense. (2) Under Secretary of State. (3) Administrator, Agency for Interna- tional Development. (4) Administrator of the National Aerc- nautics and Space Administration. (5) Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. (6) Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. (7) Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. (8) Chairmar., Atomic Energy Commission. (9) Chairman, Council of Economic Ad- visers. (10) Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (11) Director of the Bureau of the Budget. (12) Director of the Office of Science and Technology. (13) Director of the United States Arne: Control and Disarmament Agency. (14) Director of the United States Informs, tion Agency. (15) Director of the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation. Department of Justice, so ions' as the position is held by the present incum- bent: Provided, That thereafter the position shall be placed in level III. (16) Director of Central Intelligence. (17) Secretary of the Air Force. (18) Secretary of the Army. (19) Secretary of the Navy. (c) Level III of the Federal Executive Sal- ary Schedule shall apply to the following of- fices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $28,500: (1) Deputy Attorney General, (2) Solicitor General of the United States. (3) Deputy Postmaster General. (4) Under Secretary of Agriculture. (5) Under Secretary of Commerce. (6) Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation. (7) Under Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. (8) Under Secretary of the Interior. (9) Under Secretary of Labor. (10) Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs or Under Secretary of State for Eco- nomic Affairs. (11) Under Secretary of the Treasury. (12) Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs. (13 Administrator of General Services. (14) Administrator of the Small Business Administration. (15) Deputy Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. (16) Deputy Administrator, Agency for International Development. (17) Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board. (18) Chairman of the United States Civil Service Commission. (19) Chairman, Federal Communications Commission. (20 Chairman, Board of Directors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (21) Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. (22) Chairman, Federal Power Commis- sion. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 (23) Chairman, sion. (21) Chairman, Commission. (25) Chairman, Board. (26) Chairman, Exchange Commission. (27) Chairman, Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. (28) Comptroller of the Currency. (29) Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (30) Director of Defense Research and En- gineering, Department of Defense. (31) Deputy Administrator of the Nation- al Aeronautics and Space Administration. (32) Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget. (33) Deputy Director of Central Intelli- gence. (34) Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. (35) Director of the Peace Corps. . (36) Director of Selective Service, so long as the position is held by the present incum- bent: Provided. That thereafter the position shall be placed in Level IV. (37) Chief Medical Director in the Depart- metn of Medicine and Surgery of the Veter- ans' Administration. (38) Director of the National Science Foundation. (39) Deputy Administrator of the Hous- ing and Home Finance Agency. (40) President, Export-Import Bank of Washington. (d) Level IV of the Federal Executive Sal- ary Schedule shall apply to the following offices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $27,000: (1) Administrator, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State. (2) Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. (3) Deputy Administrator of General Services. (4) Associate Administrator of the Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion. (5) Assistant Administrators, Agency for International Development (6). (6) Regional Assistant Administrators, Agency for International Development (4). (7) Under Secretary of the Department of the Air Force. (8) Under Secretary of the Department of the Army. (9) Under Secretary of the Department of the Navy. (10) Deputy Under Secretaries of State (2). (11) (3)? (12) Assistant Secretaries of Commerce (4). (13) Assistant Secretaries of Defense (7). (14) Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force (3) ? (15) Assistant Secretaries of the Army (3) ? (16) Assistant Secretaries of the Navy (3). (17) Assistant Secretaries of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare (2). (18) Assistant Secretaries of the Interior (4). (19) Assistant Attorneys General (8). (20) Assistant Secretaries of Labor (4). (21) Assistant Postmasters General (5). (22) Assistant Secretaries of State (11). (23) Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury (4). (24) Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission. (25) Chairman of the National Mediation Board. (26) Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board. (27) Chairman of the United States Tariff Commission. (28) Commissioner, Community Facilities Administration. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE 15181 Federal Trade Commis- Interstate National Labor Commerce Relations Securities and Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture (29) Commissioner, Federal Housing Ad- ministration. (30) Commissioner, Public Housing Ad- ministration. (81) Commissioner, Urban Renewal Ad- ministration. (32) Director of Civil Defense. (33) Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. (34) Deputy Chief Medical Director in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration. (35) Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Planning. (36) Deputy Director, Office of Science and Technology. (37) Deputy Director of the Peace Corps. (38) Deputy Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. (39) Deputy Director of the United States Information Agency, (40) Associate Director of the Federal Bu- reau of Investigation, Department of Jus- tice. (41) Assistant Directors of the Bureau of the Budget (3). (42) General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture. (43) General Counsel of the Department of Commerce. (44) General Counsel of the Department of Defense. (45) General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (46) Solicitor of the Department of the In- terior. (47) Solicitor of the Department of Labor. (48) General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. (49) General Counsel of the Post Office Department. (50) Counselor of the Department of State. (51) Legal Adviser of the Department of State. (52) General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury. (53) First Vice President, Export-Import Bank of Washington. (54) General Manager of the Atomic Energy Commission. (55) Governor of the Farm Credit Ad- ministration. (56) Inspector General, Foreign Assist- ance. (57) Members, Atomic Energy Commis- sion. (58) Members, Civil Aeronautics Board. (59) Members, Council of Economic Ad- visers. (60) Members, Export-Import Bank of Washington. (61) Members, Federal Communications Commission. (62) Members, Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (63) Members, Federal Home Loan Bank Board. (64) Members, Federal Power Commission. (65) Members, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ((36) Members, Federal Trade Commission. (67) Members, Interstate Commerce Com- mission. (68) Members, National Labor Relations Board. (69) Members, Securities and Exchange Commission. (70) Members, Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. (71) Members, United States Civil Service Commission. (e) Level V of the Federal Executive Sal- ary Schedule shall apply to the following offices and positions, for which the annual rate of basic compensation shall be $26,000: (1) Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture. (2) Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture. (3) Administrator, Agricultural Stabiliza- tion and Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture. ie (4) Administrator, Farmers Home Admin- istration. (5) Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Agriculture. (6) Administrator, Rural Electrification Administration, Department of Agriculture. (7) Administrator, Soil Conservation Serv- ice, Department of Agriculture. (8) Administrator, Bonneville Power Ad- ministration, Department of the Interior. (9) Administrator of the 'National Cs pital Transportation Agency. (10) Administrator of the St. Lawr-nce Seaway Development Corporation. (11) Deputy Administrators of the 8, 'all Business Administration (four) . (12) Associate Administrator for Admin- istration, Federal Aviation Agency. (13) Associate Administrator for Develop- ment, Federal Aviation Agency. (14) Associate Administrator for Program, Federal Aviation Agency. (15) Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology, National Aero- nautics and Space Administration. (16) Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration. (17) Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (18) Associate Deputy Administrator, Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration. (19) Deputy Associate Administrator, Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration. (20) Associate Deputy Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. (21) Archivist of the United States. (22) Area Redevelopment Administrator, Department of Commerce. (23) Assistant Secretary of Administra- tion, Department of Agriculture. (24) Assistant Secretary for Administra- tion, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (25) Assistant Secretary for Administra- tion, Department of the Interior. (26) Assistant Attorney General for Ad- ministration. (27) Assistant Secretary for Administra- tion, Department of Labor. (28) Assistant Secretary for Administra- tion, Department of the Treasury. (29) Assistant General Manager, Atomic Energy Commission. (30) Assistant and Scientific Adviser to the Secretary of the Interior. (31) Chairman of the Foreign Claims Set- tlement Commission. (32) Chairman of the Military Liaison Committee to the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, Department of Defense. (33) Chairman of the Renegotiation Board. (34) Chairman of the Subversive Activ- ities Control Board. (35) Chief Counsel for the Internal Reve- nue Service, Department of the Treasury. (36) Chief Forester, Forest Service, De- partment of Agriculture. (37) Chief Postal Inspector, Post Office Department. (38) Chief, Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce. (39) Commissioner of Customs, Depart- ment of the Treasury. (40) Commissioner, Federal Supply Serv- ice, General Services Administration. (41) Commissioner of Education, Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. (42) Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, (43) Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare. (44) Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Justice. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE (45) Commissioner of Indian Affairs, De- partment of the Interior. (46) Chief Commissioner, Indian Claims Commission (47) Associate Commissioners, Indian Claims Commission (2) (48) Commissioner of Patents, Depart- ment of Commerce. (49) Commissioner, Public Buildings Serv- ice, General Services Administration. (50) Commissioner of Reclamation, De- partment of the Interior. (51) Commissioner of Social Security, De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. (52) Commissioner of Vocational Rehabili- tation, Department of Health. Education, and Welfare. (53) Commissioner of Welfare. Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. (54) Director, Advanced Research Proj- ects Agency, Department of Defense. (55) Director of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agriculture. (56) Director. Bureau of the Genet's, De- partment of Commerce. (57) Director, Bureau of Mines, Depart- ment of the Interior. (58) Director, Bureau of Prisons, Depart- ment of Justice. (59) Director, Geological Survey, Depart- ment of the Interior. (60) Director, Office of Research and En- gineering. Post Office Department. (61) Director, National Bureau of Stand- ards, Department of Commerce. (62) Director of Regulation, Atomic Energy Commission. (63) Director of Science and Education. Department of Agriculture. (64) Deputy Under Secretary for Monetary Affairs, Department of the Treetuary. (65) Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury. (66) Deputy Director, National Science Foundation. (67) Deputy Director, Policy and Plans, United States Information Agency. (68) Deputy General Counsel, Department of Defense. (69) Deputy General Manager, Atomic Energy Commission. (70) Associate Director, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. (71) Associate Director for Volunteers, Peace Corps. (72) Associate Director for Program De- velopment and Operations, Peace Corps. (73) Assistants to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice (2). (74) Assistant Directors, Office of Emer- gency Planning (3). (75) Assistant Directors, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (4). (76) Federal Highway Administrator, De- partment of Commerce (77) Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. (78) General Counsel of the Agency for International Development. (79) General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force. (80) General Counsel of the Department of the Army. (81) General Counsel of the Atomic Energy Commission. (82) 'General Counsel of the Federal Avia- tion Agency. (83) General Counsel of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. (84) General Counsel of the Department of the Navy. (85) General Counsel of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. (86) Governor of the Canal Zone. (87) Manpower Administrator, Depart- ment of Labor. (88) Maritime Administrator, Department of Commerce. (89) Members, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. (90) Members, Maritime Commission. (91) Members, National Mediation Board. (92) Members, Railroad Retirement Board. (93) Members, Renegotiation Board. (94) Members, Subversive Activities Con- trol Board. (95) Members. United States Tariff Com- mission. (96) President of the Federal National Mortgage Association. (97) Special Assistant to the Secretary for Health and Medical Affairs, Department of Health, Education. and Welfare. ) In addition to the offices and positions listed in eubeections (d) and (e) of this section, the President is authorized from time to time to place offices and positions held by not to exceed twenty persons In levels IV and V of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule when he deems such action necessary to reflect changes In organization, management responsibilities, or workload in any Federal department or agency. Any such action with respect to an office to which ap- pointment is made by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall be effective only at the time of a new appointment to such office. Each action taken under this subsection shall be pub- lished In the Federal Register, except when it is determined by the President that such publication would be contrary to the in- terest of the national security. No' action shall be taken under this subsection with respect to an office or position the compensa- tion for which is fixed at a specific rate by this title or by statute enacted subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act. Ser. 304. (a) Section 104 of title 3, United States Code (relating to the compensation of the Vice President), Is amended by strik- ing out "$35,000" and Inserting in lieu thereof "$43,000". (b) Section 105 of title 3. United States Code, Is amended to read as follows: "? 105. Compensation of secretaries and exe- cutive, administrative, and staff assistants to President "The President Is authorized to fix the compensation of the six administrative as- siatants authorized to be appointed under section 106 of this title, of the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council, of the Executive Secretary of the National Aeronautics and Space Council. and of eight other secretaries or Immediate staff assist- ants in the White House Office at rates of basic compensation not to exceed that of level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule.". Conforming changes in existing late Ser. 305 The following provisions of law are hereby repealed: (1) The Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2201-2209), establish- ing rates of basic compensation for heads of executive departments and other Federal officials. (2) Section 3012(h) of title 10, United States Code, providing compensation of $22,- 000 a year for the Secretary of the Army. (3) Section 8013(b) of title 10, United States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the Under Secretary and each Assistant Secretary of the Army at $20,000 a year. (4) Section 5031(d) of title 10, United States Code, providing compensation of $22,- 000 a year for the Secretary of the Navy. (5) Section 5033(c) of title 10, United States Code, providing the annual salary of $20,000 a year for the Under Secretary of the Navy. (6) Section 304 of Public Law 8'7-651, ap- proved September '7, 1962 (78 Stat. 526; 10 U.S.C. 5094, note), providing compensation of $20,000 a year for Assistant Secretaries of the Navy. (7) Section 8012(g) of title 10, United States Code, providing compensation of July 1 $22,000 a year for the Secretary of the Air Force. (8) Section 8013(b) of title 10, United States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the Under Secretary and each Assistant Secre- tary of the Mr Force at $20,000 a year. (9) Section 137(c) of title 10, United States Code. fixing the compensation of the General Counsel of the Department of De- fense at the rate prescribed by law for ambit- ant secretaries of executive departments. (10) (A) The last sentence of section 22 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amend- ed (68 Stat. 924; 71 Stat, 612; 42 U.S.C. 2C32 (a) ), relating to the annual salaries of the Chairman and members of such Commission, which reads: "Each member, except the Chairman, shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,000 per annum; and the mem- ber designated as Chairman shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,500 ler annum.". (B) That part of the first sentence of sec- tioon 27 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2037(a)), relating to the salary of the Chairman of the Military Liaison Committee which reads: ", and w'ao shall receive compensation at the rate pre- scribed for an. Assistant Secretary of De- fense". (11) That part of Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799 and 8(1; 75 Stat. 630; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note)? (A) In section 2(b),relating to the anneal salary of the Director of the Office of Emer- gency Planning, which reads: "and shall re- ceive compensation at the rate now or here- after prescribed by law for the heads of executive departments"; (B) In section 2(c), relating to the annual salary of the Deputy Director of such Office, which reads: "shall receive compensation at the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for the under secretaries referred to in sec- tion 104 of the Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956 (5 U.S.C. 2203),"; and (C) In section 2(d) relating to the annual salaries of three Assistant Directors of such Office, which reads: "shall receive compensa- tion at the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for assistant secretaries of executive departments." (12) (A) That part of the second sentence of section 202(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2472(a)), relating to the annual salary of the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which reads: and shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum". (B) That part of the first sentence of sec- tion 202(b) of such Act (72 Stat. 429; ,12 U.S.C. 2472(b) ), relating to the annual salary of the Deputy Administrator of such Admin- istration, which reads: ", shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $21,500 per annum ". (13) (A) That part of section 201(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. (72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f)), relating to the annual salary of a civilian executive sec- retary in the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which reads: "and shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $20.000 a year". (B) That part of section 204 of such Act (72 Stat. 431, 432; 42 U.S.C. 2474(a) (1), and (d) ) , relating to the annual salary of the Chairman of the Civilian-Military Liaison Committee, as follows: In subsection (a) (1), that part which reads: ", and shall receive compensation (.n the manner provided in subsection (d) ) at the rate of $20,000 per annum". In the second sentence of subsection (d), that part which reads: "fixed by subsection (a) (1) ". (14) (A) That part of the second sentenee of section 2(a) of the Act of May 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C. 151b(a)) as amended, relating to the rank and salary of the Coun- selor and of the Legal Adviser of the Depart- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15183 ment of State, which reads: "and shall re- ceive the same salary as". (B) The last sentence Of sectiOn, 2(a) of the Act of May 26, /949 (63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C. 151b(a) ) as amended, relating to the rate of basic compensation of the Deputy Under Secretaries of State, which reads: "Unless otherwise provided for by law, the rate of basic compensation of the Deputy Under Secretaries of State shall be the same as that of Assistant Secretaries of State.". (C) That part of the second sentence of section 2(b) of the Act of May 26, 1949, as amended (73 Stat. 265; 5 U.S.C. 151b(b) ), re- lating to the annual salary of the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs or for Economic Affairs, as designated by the Presi- dent, which reads: "shall receive compensa- tion at the rate of $22,000 a year and". (15) The last sentence of section 210(a) of title 38, United States Code, relating to the annual salary of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, Veterans' Administration, which reads: "He shall receive a salary of $21,000 a year, payable monthly.". (16) (A) The last sentence of section 201(a) (2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 741; 49 U.S.C. 1321(a) (2) ), relating to the annual salaries of the Chair- man and members of the Civil Aeronautics Board, which reads: "Each member of the Board shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per annum, except that the member serving as Chairman shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,500 per annum.". (B) That part of the second sentence of section 301(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744; 49 U.S.C. 1341(a) ), relating to the annual salary of the Administrator of the Pederal Aviation Agency, which reads: ", and who shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum". (C) That part of the second sentence of section 302(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744; 49 U.S.C. 1342(a) ), relating to the annual salary of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency, which reads: "shall receive compen- sation at the rate of $20,500 per annum, and". (17) (A) The last sentence of section 22 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2562), relating to the annual salary of the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which reads: "He shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum.". (B) The second sentence of section 23 of such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2563), re- lating to the annual salary of the Deputy Director of such Agency, which reads: "He shall receive compensation at the rate of $21,500 per annum.". (C) The second sentence of section 24 of such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2564), re- lating to the 'annual salaries of the four As- sistant Directors of such Agency, which reads: "They shall receive compensation at the rate of $20,000 per annum.". (18) Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1955 (69 Stat. 10; 5 U.S.C. 294, 293, 295a), relating to the annual salaries of certain officials of the Department of Justice, which reads: "Sso. 3. (a) The compensation of the Dep- uty Attorney General shall be at the rate of $21,000 per annum. "(b) The compensation of the Solicitor General shall be at the rate of $20,500 per annum. "(c) The compensation of each Assistant Attorney General, other than the Admin- istrative Assistant Attorney General, shall be at the rate of $20,000 per annum.". (19) (A) The last sentence of section 102(c) of Reorganization Plan Numbered '7 of 1961 (75 Stat. 840; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), re- lating to the annual salaries of the Chair- man and members of the Federal Maritime Commission, which reads: "The Chairman of the Commission shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,500 per annum, and each of the other ComMissioners shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per annum.". (B) That part of section 201 of such re- organization plan (75 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), relating t,o the annual salary of the Maritime Administrator in the De- partment of Commerce, which reads: "shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per an- (20) That part of the fourth sentence of section 4(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (74 Stat. 408 and 913; 15 U.S.C. 78d(a) ); relating to the annual sal- aries of the Chairman and Commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which reads: "shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 a year, except that the Chair- man shall receive additional salary at the rate of $500 a year and". (21) Section 8 of the Food Additives Amendments of 1958 (72 Stat. 1789; 5 2205, note), fixing the annual salary of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs at $20,000 per annum. (22) That part of the first sentence of sec- tion 3 of the Area Redevelopment Act (75 Stat. 48; 42 'U.S.C. 2502), relating to the an- nual salary of the Area Redevelopment Ad- ministrator in the Department of Com- merce, which reads: "who shall receive com- pensation at a rate equal to that received by Assistant Secretaries of Commerce". (23) The last sentence of section 203(b) (1) of the National' Security Act of 1947 (72 Stat. 520; 5 U.S.C. 171c(b) (1) ) relating to the annual salary of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering in the Department of Defense, which reads: "The compensation of the Director is that prescribed by law for the Seerctari,s of the military departme 'ts.". (24) In section 303(a) of title 23, United States Code, (A) That part of the second sentence, re- lating to the annual salary of the Federal Highway Administrator in the Department of Commerce, which reads: "shall receive basic -compensation at the rate prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of executive depart- ments and"; and (B) The last sentence, relating to the an- nual salary of the Deputy Federal Highway Administrator in such department, which reads: "The Deputy Federal Highway Ad- ministrator shall receive basic compensation at a rate $1,000 less than the rate provided for the Federal Highway Administrator.". (25) The last proviso in the paragraph under the herdingT "IMMIGRATION AND NA- TURALIZATION SERVICE" and under the sub- heading "SALARIES AND EXPENSES" in the De- partment of Justice Appropriation Act, 1959 (72 Stat. 251; 5 U.S.C. 2206, note), relating to the annual salary of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which reads: ": Provided further, That, here- after, the compensation of the Commissioner of the Immiffratio-, and Naturalization Serv- ice shall be $20,000 per annum". (26) The second paragraph of section 3 of title 35, United States Code, relating to the annual salary of the Commissioner of Pat- ents which reads: "The annual rate of com- pensation of the Commissioner shall be $20,000.". (27) That part of section 4(a)of the Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612; 22 U.S.C. 2503(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of the Direc- tor and of the Deputy Director of the Peace Corps, which reads: ", whose compensation shall be fixed by the President at a rate not in excess of $20,000 per annum," and ", whose compensation shall be fixed by the President at a rate not in excess of $19,500 per annum;'. (28) (A) Section 308 of title 39, United States Code, fixing the annual rate of basic compensation of, the position of Chief Postal Inspector in the Post Office Department at $19,000. (B) That part of the table of contents of chapter 3 of title 39, United States Code, which reads as follows: "308. Chief Postal Inspector.". (29) That part of the first sentence of sec- tion 4 of the International Travel Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 130; 22 U.S.C. 2124), relating to the annual salary of the Director of the United States Travel Service in the Depart- ment_ of Commerce, which reads: "who shall be compensated at the rate of $19,000 per annum,", (30) Section 14(b) of the Federal Em- ployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 716; 5 U.S.C. 5013(b)), which fixes the com- pensation of the Executive Director of the United States Civil Service Commission at $19,000 per annum. (31) That part of the first sentence of section 107(c) of the Renegotiation Act of 1951, as amended (73 Stat. 211; 50 U.S.C. App. 1217(c) ), relating to the annual salary of the General Counsel of the Renegotiation Board which reads:.", and shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $19,000 per annum". (32) (A) That part of ?the third sentence in section 201(a) of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 538; 10 U.S.C. 661(a) ), relating to the annual salary of the Administrator of the National Capital Transportation Agency, which reads: ", and who shall receive compensation at a rate equal to the maximum rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, plus $500 per an- num". (B) That part of the first sentence of sec- tion 201(b) of such Act (74 Stat. 538; 40 U.S.C. 601(b)), relating to the annual salary of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency, which reads: ", and who shall receive com- pensation at a rate equal to the maximum rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended". (33) The last sentence of section 624(d) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 447; 22 U.S.C. 2384(d) (1)), as amended, fixing the compensation of certain officials in the Department of State, which reads: "The Inspector General, Foreign As- sistance, shall receive compensation at the rate of $20,000 annually; the Deputy In- spector. General, Foreign Assistance, shall receive compensation at the rate of $20,000 annually, and each Assistant Inspector Gen- eral, Foreign Assistance, shall receive com- pensation at the rate of $19,000 annually.". (34) That part of section 202 of the Act of July 1, 1960 (74 Stat. 305; 5 U.S.C. 623g), relating to the annual salary of the Admin- istrative Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, which reads: ", and whose annual rate of basic compensation shall be $19,000". (35) That part of the Public Works Ap- propriation Act, 1963, under the heading "DEPARTMENT OF THE IN fratIOR" and under the Caption "BUREAU OF RECLAMATION" and the subheading "ADMINISTRATIVE ram-I- /MONS" (76 Stat. 1223; 43 U.S.C. 373a-1), re- lating to the annual salary of the present in- cumbent of the position of Commission of the Bureau of Reclamation, which reads: "After September 30, 1962, the position of Commissioner of Reclamation shall have the annual rate of compensation as provided for positions listed in section 2205(a) of title 5, United States Code, so long as held by the present incumbent.". (36) That part of the Public Works Ap- propriation Act, 1962, under the heading "DE- PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" and under the Caption "BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRA- TION' and the subheading "CONSTRUCTION" ('75 Stat. 728; 16 U.S.C. 832a-1), relating to the annual salary of the present incumbent of the position of Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration, which reads: "After October 1, 1961, the position of Administrator, Bonneville Power Administra- tion, shall have the same annual rate' of compensation as that provided for positions Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 1 listed in section 2205(b) of title 5, United States Code, so long as held by the present incumbent.". (37) Section 205 of the Public Works Ap- propriation Act, 1958) (71 Stat. 423; 5 U.S.C. 483-1 note. 2206 note), as amended, relating to the salary of the present incumbent of the position of Administrator of the South- western Power Administration in the De- partment of the Interior. and to the salary of the Administrative Assistant Secretary of such Department, which reads: 'SEC. 205. After August 31, 1957, the salary of the Administrator of the Southwestern Power Administration shall be the same as the salary of the Administrator of the Bonne- ville Power Administration, so long as held by the present incumbent; and the salary of the Administrative Assistant Secretary of the Department shall be the mime as the Solici- tor of the Department of the Interior.". (38) The proviso In the first paragraph un- der the heading "FEDERAL BUREAU or Layman- csarow" and under the subheading "SALARIES and EXPENSES" in the Department of Justice Appropriation Act. 1964 (77 Stat. 782; Public Law 88-245). relating to the annual salary of the present incumbent of the position of Di- rector of the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion, which reads: ": Provided, That the compensation of the Director of the Bureau shall be $22.000 per annum so long as the position is held by the present Incumbent" and provisions to the same effect contained in other appropriation Acts enacted prior to the effective date of this section relating to the annual salary of the present Incumbent of the position of Director of the Federal Bu- reau of Investigation. (39) That part of section 7801(b) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, relating to the annual salary of the Assistant General Counsel of the Treasury Department Who shall be the Chief Counsel for the Inter- nal Revenue Service, which reads: "and shall receive basic compensation at the annual rate of $19,000". (40)(A) Sections 3018, 6014, and 8018 of title 18, United States Code, relating to the compensation of the general counsels of the military departments. (B) The respective tables of contents of chapters 303, 503, and 803 of title 10, United States Code, are amended by striking out "3018. Compensation of General Counsel."; "5014. Compensation of General Counsel"; and "8018. Compensation of General Counsel.". (41)(A) That part of section 2(a) of Re- organization Plan Numbered 2 of 1982 (76 Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 119z-15. note), relating to the compensation of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, which reads: "and shall receive compensation at the rate of $22,590 per annum". (B) That part of section 2(b) of auch re- organization plan (76 Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), relating to the compensation of the Deputy Director of the Office of Sci- ence and Technology, which reads: "and re- ceive compensation at the rate of $20.500 per annum". (C) That part of section 22(a) of such re- organization plan (76 Stat. 1255; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), relating to the compensation of the Director of the National Science Foun- dation, which reads: "shall receive cornpen- aation at the rate of $21,000 per annum and". (42) That part of section 624(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 447; 22 U.S.C. 2384(a) ).relating to the compensa- tion of twelve officers in the agency primarily responsible for administering part I of such Act, which reads: "of whom- "(1) one shall have the rank of an Under Secretary and shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate authorized by law for any Under Secretary of an Executive De- partment; "(2) one shall have the rank of Deputy Under Secretary and shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate authorized by law for any Deputy Under Secretary of an executive department; and "(3) ten shell have the rank of Assistant Secretaries and shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate authorized by law for any Assistant Secretary of an executive department.". 1431 That part of the first sentence of sec- tion 164(b) of the Immigration and Nation- ality Act (66 Stat. 174; 8 U.S.C. 1104(b)), re- lating to the rank and compensation of the Administrator, Bureau of Security and Con- sular Affairs, which reads: "and compensa- tion". Sec. 306. (a) (1) Section 508 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "I 508. Salaries "Subject to subsection (f) of section 303 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1904, the Attorney General shall fix the annual salaries of United States attorneys, assist- ant United States attorneys, and attorneys appointed under section 603 of this title at rates of compensation not In excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Sched- ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.". (2) Subject to section 303(f) of this Act, each incumbent United States attorney and assistant United States attorney shall be paid compensation at a rate equal to that of attorneys of comparable responsibility and professional qualifications, as determined by the Attorney General, whose compensation is prescribed in the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1940, as amended. ( b) Section 411 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (70 Stat. 704; 23 U.S.C. 866), relating to the per annum sal- aries of chiefs of mission, Is amended by striking out the second sentence of that section and inserting in lieu thereof the fol- lowing: "The per annum salaries of chiefs of mission within each class shall be at the rate provided by law for the levels of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule as follows: class 1, the rate for level II; class 2, the rate for level III; class 3, the rate for level IV; and class 4, the rate for level V.". (c) That part of section 201(f) of the Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 438; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f)), fixing a limit of $19.000 on the compensation of seven persona in the National Aeronautics and Space Council, ID amended by striking out "compensated at the rate of not more than $19,000 a year," and Inserting in lieu thereof "compensated at not to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended,". (d) Clause (A) of section 203 (b) (2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2473(b) (2) ), as amended, Ls amended to read as follows: "(A) to the extent the Administrator deems such action necessary to the discharge of hie re- sponsibilities, he may appoint not more than four hundred and twenty-five of the scien- tific, engineering, and administrative per- sonnel of the Administration without re- gard to such lawm, and may fix the compen- sation of such personnel not in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and". (e) Section 6(f) of the Act of September 24, 1959 ('73 Stat. 708; 5 U.S.C. 2376(f)), re- lating to the maximum compensation pay- able to employees of the Advisory Commis- sion on Intergovernmental Relation/3, is amended by striking out "at a rate in ex- cess of $20.000 per annum" and by inserting In lieu thereof "at a rate in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General (Rhea- ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended". (1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is further amended as follows: (1) In the last sentence of section 26 a. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(a) ) , relating to the annual salary of the General Manager of such Commission, (A) by insert- ing "and" immediately before "shall be re- movable by the Commission" and (B) by striking out that part which reads: ", and shall receive compensation at a rate deter- mined by the Commission, but not in ex- cess of $22,000 per annum"; (2) In the last sentence of section 24 b. (71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(b) ), relating to the annual salary of the Deputy General Manager of such Commission, (A) by insert- ing "and" immediately before "shall be re- movable by the General Manager" and ,B) by striking out that part which reads: ", and shall receive compensation at a rate deter- mined by the General Manager, but not in excess of $20,500 per annum"; (3) In the last sentence of section 24 C. (71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(c)), relating to the annual salaries of the Assistant General Managers (or their equivalents) of such Commission, (A) by inserting "and" immedi- ately before "shall be removable by the Gen- eral Manager" and (B) by striking out that part which reads: ", and shall receive cern- pensation at a rate determined by the Gen- eral Manager, but not in excess of $20,000 per annum"; (4) In the second sentence of section 25 a. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035 (a) ), relating to the annual salaries of di- rectors of program divisions of such Com- mission, by striking out that part which reads: "and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the Commission, but not in excess of $19,000 per annum"; (5) In section 25 b. (68 Stat. 925; 71 812; 42 U.S.C. 2035(b)), relating to the In- nual salary of the General Counsel of such Commission, by striking out that part which reads: "and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the Commission, but not in excess of $19,500 per annum"; (6) In the first sentence of section 25 C. (68 Stat. 925; '71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(c) ) , relating to the annual salary of the Director of the Inspection Division in such Commis- sion, by striking out that part which reads: "and shall receive compensation at a rate determined by the Commission, but not in excess of 419.000 per annum"; (7) In the last sentence of section 25 d. (71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(d)), relating to the annual salaries of certain executive manage- ment positions in such Commission, (A) by inserting "and" immediately before "shall be removable by the General Manager" and I B) by striking out that part which reads: ", and shall receive compensation at a rate deter- mined by the General Manager, but not in excess of $19,000 per annum"; and (8) In the second sentence of section 28 (68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2038), relating to the compensation of the active member of the Armed Forces serving as Director of the D:vi- Mon of Military Application in such Ccm- mission, by stalking out that part which reads "and the compensation prescribed in section 25" and inserting in lieu thereof. "and the compensation established for this position pursuant to section 303 or section 309 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964". (g) Section 2 of the Act of July 30. 1e46, as amended (60 Stat. 712; 70 Stat. 740; 22 U.S.C. 287n), relating to the conapensation of the United States representatives and alter- nates at sessions of the General Confere.ace of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, is amended by striking out "Such representatives and alter- nates shall each be entitled to receive cam- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196,4 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15185 pensation at such rates, not to exceed $15,- 000. per annum, as the President may deter- mine," and inserting in lieu thereof "Such representatives and alternates shall each be entitled to receive compensation at such rates provided for Foreign Service officers in the schedule contained in section 412 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, as the President may determine,". (h) The third sentence of section 2 of the Act of May 29, 1959 (73 Stat. 63; 50 U.S.C. 402, note), is amended to read as follows: "Ex- cept as provided in subsection (f) of section 303 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964, no officer or employee of the National Security Agency shall be paid basic compen- sation at a rate in excess of the highest rate of basic compensation contained in such General Schedule.". (i) (1) Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of July 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code, secs. 1-204a and 1-204b), relating to the compensation of the Commissioners of the District of Colum- bia, are amended to read as follows: "Scc. 2. Except as otherwise provided by this section and section 3 of this Act- "(1) the compensation of the Commis- sioners of the District of Columbia shall be at the rate of $25,500 each per annum; and "(2) the Commissioner detailed from the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army shall receive an annual compensation which, when added to any compensation he receives as an officer of the United States Army, will equal the compensation authorized by para- graph (1) of this section. "SEC. 3. Notwithstanding any other pro- vision of law- "(1) the compensation of the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall be at the rate of $26,000 per annum; and "(2) if the Commissioner detailed from the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army is chosen President of the Board of Commissioners, he shall receive, as President of the Board, an annual compensation which, when added to any compensation he re- ceives as an officer of the United States Army, will equal the compensation authorized by paragraph (1) of this section.". (2) Section 11-702(d) of the District of Columbia Code (77 Stat. 484; Public Law 88-241), relating to the rates of annual salary of the chief Judge and the associate Judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, is amended- (A) by striking out "$19,000" and insert- ing in lieu thereof "$25,000"; and (B) by striking out "$18,500" and insert- ing in lieu thereof "$24,500". (3) Section 11-902(d) of the District of Columbia Code (77 Stat. 487; Public Law 88-241), relating to the rates of annual salary of the chief Judge and the associate judges of the District of Columbia Court of Gen- eral Sessions, is amended- (A) by striking out "$18,000" and insert- ing in lieu therof "$24,000"; and "Class 10 Fire Chief. Chief of Police." is amended to read as follows: "Class 10 Fire Chief. Chief of Police." (j) (1) The catchline of section 3012 of title 10, 'United States Code, is amended by striking out "; compensation". (2) The table of contents of chapter 303 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and duties; delegation by; compensa- tion." and inserting in lieu thereof "3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and duties; delegation by.". (3) The catchline of section 5031 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "; com- pensation". (4) The table of contents of chapter 505 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili- ties; compensation." and inserting in lieu thereof "5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili- ties.". (5) The catchline of section 5033 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "; com- pensation". (6) The table of contents of chapter 505 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: appoint- ment; duties; compensation." and inserting in lieu thereof "5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: appoint- ment; duties.". (7) The catchline of section 8012 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "; com- pensation". (8) The table of contents of chapter 803 of such title 10 is amended by striking out "8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers duties; delegation by; compensa- tion." and inserting in lieu thereof "8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers and duties; delegation by.". No. 132 21 17,000 17,400 1 17,800 18,200 (B) by striking out "$17,500" and insert- ing in lieu thereof "$23,500". (4) The first sentence of the second para- graph of section 2 of the District of Colum- bia Revenue Act of 1937, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-2402), relating to the compen- sation of the person appointed to the Dis- trict of Columbia Tax Court, is amended by striking out 117,500" and inserting in lieu thereof $23,500". (5) That part of the salary schedule in section 1 of the District of Columbia Teach- ers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended (76 Stat. 1229; D.C. Code, sec. 31-1501), relating to the compensation of the Superintendent of Schools, and Deputy Superintendent of Schools, of the District of Columbia, which reads: "Class 1: Superintendent of Schools $19, 000 Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 16, 500" is amended to read as follows: "Class 1: Superintendent of Schools $25, 000 Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 21,000" (6) That part of the salary schedule in section 101 of the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 480), as amended (sec. 4-823, et seq., D.C. Code, 1961 edition), relating to the compen- sation of the Fire Chief and the Chief of Police, which reads: I 18,600 I 10,000 I 20,000 ! 20, 500 21,000 21, 500 I 22,000 22, 500 Changes in position titles SEC. 307. Whenever reference is made in any law or reorganization plan to the- Administrative Assistant Attorney Gen- eral, Administrative Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agri- culture, Administrative Assistant Secretary of Labor, Administrative Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, or Administrative Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, such reference shall be held and considered to mean the- Assistant Attorney General for Admin- istration, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Administration, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Admin- istration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Administration, or Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for Administration, respectively. Limitation on salaries fixed by administra- tive action SEC. 308. Except as provided by this Act and notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the head of any executive depart- ment, independent establishment, or agency in the executive branch who is authorized to fix by administrative action the annual rate of basic compensation for any position, officer, or employee shall not fix such rate in excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to impair the authorities provided in the Central Intelli- gence Agency Act of 1919, as amended (50 U.S.C. 403a and following), in section 3 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831b), in section 9 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1819), in section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248), or in section 5240 of the Re- vised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481, relating to the Comptroller of the Currency) . Positions placed under Classification Act of 1949 SEC. 309. Each office or position in the executive branch specifically referred to in, or covered by, any conforming change in law made by section 305 of this Act, or any other office or position in the executive branch for which the annual salary is established pursuant to special provision of law enacted prior to July 1, 1964, at a figure of $18,500 or above, which is not placed in a level of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule pursuant to section 303 of this Act, shall receive pay equivalent to a grade and step of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. All actions taken under this section shall be ' reported to the United States Civil Service Commission and pub- lished in the Federal Register, except when it is determined by the President that such report and publication would be contrary to the interest of national security. Saving provisions SEC. 310. (a) Except as provided by this Act, the changes in existing law made by this Act shall not affect any office or posi- tion existing immediately prior to the effec- tive date of any such changes in existing law, the compensation attached to such office or position, and any incumbent there- of, his appointment thereto, and his entitle- ment to receive the compensation attached thereto, until appropriate action is taken in accordance with this Act or other law. (b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, the rate of basic, gross, or total annual compensation received by any officer or em- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 1 pioyee immediately prior to the effective date of this section shall not be reduced by reason of enactment of this Act. TITLE IV-FEDERAL JUDICIAL SALARIES SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the "Federal Judicial Salary Act of 1064". SEC. 402. 1a) The rates of basic compensa- tion of officers and employees in or under the judicial branch of the Government whose rates of compensation are fixed by or pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision a of section 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 102(a) (2)), section 3656 of title 18, United States Code, the third sentence of section 603, sections 672 to 675. Inclusive, or section 1304(a) (5), of title 28, United States Code, insofar as the latter section applies to graded positions, are hereby increased by amounts reflecting the respective applicable Increases provided by title I of this Act In corresponding rates of compensation for of- ficers and employees subject to the Classifi- cation Act of 1949, as amended. The rates of basic compensation of officers and em- ployees holding ungraded positions and whose salaries are fixed pursuant to section 604(a) (5) may be increased by the amounts reflecting the respective applicable increases provided by title I of this Act In correspond- ing rates of compensation for officers and employees subject to the classification Act of 1949, as amended. (b) The limitations provided by applicable law on the effective date of this section with respect to the aggregate salaries payable to secretaries and law clerks of circuit and dis- trict judges are hereby increased by amounts which reflect the respective applicable In- creases provided by title I of this Act in corresponding rates of compensation for officers and employees subject to the Classi- fication Act of 1949, as amended. (c) Section 753(e) of title 28, United States Code (relating to the compensation of court reporters for district courts). Is amended by striking out the existing salary limitation contained therein and inserting a new limitation which reflects the respec- tive applicable increases provided by title I of this Act in corresponding rates of com- pensation for officers and employees subject to the Classification Act of 1949. as amended. (d) Section 40a of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 68(a) ), as amended, relating to the compensation of full-time and part-time referees in bankruptcy, is amended by strik- ing out the existing compensation limita- tions contained therein and inserting new limitations of "$22,51:4r. and "$11,000", respectively. SEC. 403. (a) Section 5 of title 28, United States Code, relating to the salaries of the Chief Justice of the United States and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, is amended by striking out "1135.500" and substituting therefor "$43.000". and by striking out "$35,000" and substituting therefor "$42.500". (b) Section 44(d) of title 28, Uelted States Code, relating to circuit judges, is amended by striking out "$25,500" and substituting therefor "833,000". (c) Section 135 of title 28, United States Code, relating to district judges. Is amended by striking out "822500" and substituting therefor "$30.000", and by striking out "$23,- 000" and substituting therefor "$30,500". (d) Section 173 of title 28, United States Code relating to judges of the Court of Claims, is amended by striking out "$25.500" and substituting therefor "$33,000". ( el Section 213 of title 28, United States Code. relating to judges of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, is amended by striking out "$25,500" and substituting there- for "833,000". if) Section 252 of title 28, United States Code, relating to judges of the Customs Court, is amended by striking out "$22.500" and substituting therefor "1130.000". (g) The first paragraph of section 803 of title 28, United States Code, relating to the compensation of the Director and the Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. la amended to read as follows: "The Director shall receive a salary of $27,000 a year. The Deputy Director shall receive a salary of $26.000 a year." (hi Subsection (b) of section 792 of title 28, United States Code, relating to the com- pensation of commissioners of the Court of Claims is amended to read as follows: "(b) Each commissioner shell receive basic compensation at the rate of $26,000 a year, and also all necessary traveling expenses and a per diem allowance as provided In the navel Expense Act of 1940, as amended, while traveling on official business and away from Washington. District of Columbia." (1) Section 7443(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (68A Stat. 879), as amended, relating to judges of the Tax Court of the United States, is further amended by strik- ing out "$22,500" and substituting therefor -$30.000". (I) Section 1367(a) (1) of title 10, United S?ntes Code, relating to judges of the Court of Military Appeals. le amended by striking out "125.500" and substituting therefor "S33,000". TITLE 4-EFFECTIVE DATES Sec. 501. (a) Except to the extent pro- vided in subsections (b) and (c) of this sec- tion, this Act and the increases in compen- sation made by this Act shall become effec- tive on July 1, 1964. bi Section 204 of this Act, relating to in- creases in compensation for Members of Con- gress, shall become effective at noon on Jan- uary 3. 1965. ic Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act (but except as otherwise pro- vided in subsection (b) of this section)? (1) no rate of compensation which is equal to or In excess of $22,000 per annum shall be Increased in any amount, by reason of section 202 of this Act, until the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after January 1. 1965: and (21 no rate of compensation which is less than $22,000 per annum shall be increased to an amount per annum in excess of $22,000. by reason of section 202 or 203(g) of this Act, until the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after January 1, 1965. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the precedents of the Senate, the com- mittee substitute for this bill is con- sidered as original text for the purpose of amendment, and is therefore subject to amendment in two degrees. Amend- ments to the House text or any amend- ment thereto has precedence over the committee substitute or any amendment to it. The vote on the substitute, whether amended or not, will not come until after all perfecting amendments, either to the original bill or the substitute itself have been disposed of. The committee amendment, when agreed to. is not subject to further amendment. OIL IMPORT PROGRAM Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rule of ger- maneness be waived for the duration of my comments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, It is so ordered. Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, last Thursday afternoon, nearly a week ago, the Secretary of the Interior announced the Government's decision on the level of oil imports under the mandatory oil Import program for the last half of 1964. This decision came after strong ap- peals from dozens of U.S. Senators and Members of the House of Representa- tives, 20 Governors, and strong grassr)ots support for a substantial reduction in the level of crude oil imports. What was the decision? Instead of a substantial reduction, the program announced increased oil im- ports into the United States for the last half of 1964 by more than 100,000 bar- rels per day over the same period of last year. This was done in spite of the De- partment's conclusion in its Thursday announcement that: The Department also announced the pre- liminary results of a review of the basic economic position ccnfronting the domestic producing industry. The tentative conclu- sions from the study indicate that there has been a gradual erasion in the crude price structure throughout the United States, and that despite moderate increases in crude pro- duction, domestic producers are being .fon- fronted with increasing difficulties. Mr. President, I find this action in- comprehensible in light of the seriously depressed conditions now prevailing in this vital domestic industry. Why did 16 Senators, including myself, and my colleague from Wyoming IMr. Simpsoril join in a strong bipartisan ap- peal to the President for a substantial reduction in oil imports? Why did dozens of other Senators and Members of the House address individual appeals to the President, the Secreiwy of the Interior, and the Secretary of De- fense, imploring them to greatly reduce the levels of oil imports into this coun- try? Why did 20 State Governors send a telegram to President Johnson declaring: Governors of several oil States request your assistance in the establishment of oil import quotas which comply with the congressional mandate aimed at insuring continued do- mestic exploration and the developmer.t of domestic supplies adequate to meet the needs of our national security. Why did the Independent Petrolaum Association of America, representing 10,- 000 oil and gas producers, joined by more than 30 State and local associations, pe- tition the President and the Secretary of the Interior for prompt relief from this evergrowing tide of foreign oil? Mr. President, I will tell you why. This Nation is facing a steady deteri- oration of one of the basic industries--an Industry which in my mind is the most important national security tool this Na- tion has. It is even more important, relatively speaking, to my own State of Wymr.ing, where it constitutes by far the largest segment of our State's economy. Wyo- ming ranks fifth among the oil-produc- ing States. We are witnessing the continual de- cline of an industry which in the past has been called upon to produce the petroleum so vital to successfully prose- cute wars, stand off and deter war threats, help other friendly nations in Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15282 - Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2 LEAD Consumption of lead in the United States has been increasing In recent years, with the available supply being exceeded by nearly 40,000 short tons in both 1962 and 1963. The total U.S. consumption of 1,154,300 short tons in 1963 was the highest since 1957 when consumption was 1,138,115 short tons. The stockpile objective for lead was re- duced by the Office of Emergency Planning from 286,000 short tons to zero on June 17, 1963. As a consequence the inventory of 1,378,453 short tons of lead in excess of esti- mated stockpile requirements. The com- mittee was informed that the developing lead shortage in the commercial market may become serious during 1964. Consequently the present circumstances seem more favor- able for an orderly disposal of lead surpluses than they have in recent years. LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE The objective of this bill is similar to that of S. 2933, introduced by the junior Senator from West Virginia, [Mr. BYRD ] , and S. 2867, which was introduced by the senior Senator from West Virginia, [Mr. RANDOLPH] . FISCAL DATA The average acquisition cost of the lead in the national stockpile was $0.1445 per pound. Current market prices for lead, the highest in several years, are about $0.13 per pound. Mr. MONRONEY. Would the Sena- tor tell us how much lead and zinc is involved? Mr. SYMINGTON. There are 75,000 tons of zinc; and 50,000 tons of lead. Mr. MONRONEY. Can the Senator state whether the committee is satisfied it will have no adverse effect on the commodity? Mr. SYMINGTON. Let me say to the Senator from Oklahoma that those who are most eager to have the disposals ap- proved are the users of the materials. There is a critical shortage. Mr. MONRONEY. It would not ad- versely affect the current market, in the judgment of the Senator? Mr. SYMINGTON. In the opinion of the disposal experts of the General Serv- ices Administration, and in the judgment of the committee, it would not. Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the Sena- tor. I know of his great interest in this subject. His State is ap i ortant producer of the mat a'',1 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (MR. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. I should like to know whether the pay increase would also ap- ply to retired judges who are drawing full pay for life. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, in- active judges drawing full pay are not specifically mentioned in this bill. But under the law that is already on the statute books, they would. Mr. LAUSCHE. That means that a judge who is retired would also get the benefit of this pay increase? Mr. JOHNSTON. That is true. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time not be charged against the time on either side. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield briefly to me? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Montana. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. MANSFIELD. I understand that the next amendment will be one to be offered by the Senator from Oregon. I ask unanimous consent?and I hope this meets with the approval of the Sen- ate?that, from now on, there be a time limitation, on each amendment, of one- half an hour, with 15 minutes to be al- lotted to the proponents and 15 minutes to be allotted to the opponents, and with the time to be controlled, respectively, by the mover of the amendment and the Senator from South Carolina, respec- tively; and that 2 hours be available on the question of the passage of the bill, with the time to be controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Sena- tor from South Carolina for yielding to me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time, and to whom? Do Senators who are in charge of the time on the Williams amendment yield back the re- maining time under their control? Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, how much time remains available to each side? The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Senator from Delaware has 4 minutes remaining; the Senator from South Carolina has 6 minutes remaining. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Dela- ware [Mr. WILLIAM s] . Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does either side yield time to the Senator from Arkansas? Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I wish to have only about 1 minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Arkan- sas? Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, if I cannot get any time now, I shall offer an amendment of my own. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I shall try to get the time for the Senator from Arkansas. I have yielded almost all the time I have. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I do not know on which side the Senator in- tends to speak. I am willing to give him 1 minute of my time. I suggest that the Senator from Delaware yield him 1 min- ute. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, to re- solve the issue, I yield 1 minute on the bill to the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. McCLELLAN. I wish to make one statement. One of the reasons why I cannot support the bill is that the Gov- ernment is operating at a continuous deficit. Later I shall make a short statement on the bill, but that is one of the reasons why I cannot support the bill. - When the tax reduction bill was before the Senate, I offered an amendment which would link the reduction to a balanced budget. In a sense, my posi- tion now is comparable. The same prin- ciple is involved as was involved in the previous amendment. I commend those who have offered the amendment. I shall support it. I do not believe?and I will repeat the statement again in my remarks?that we have any moral right to raise our salaries and charge the cost to future genera- tions. We should not increase the deficit under which the Government is now operating. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield 2 minutes? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 2 minutes to the minority leader. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I hope that the amendment will not prevail. Very simply, it provides that there shall be no salary increase in the case of those whose salary is now $20,000 or over, until the Federal budget is balanced. I sat through all the tax hearings held by the Senate Committee on Finance. Some of the best testimony we had was from none other than Arthur Burns, the economist and chairman of economic ad- visers in the Eisenhower administration. It was his opinion, contrary to that of some others, including the Secretary of the Treasury, that we could not see a balanced budget until 1972. That is 8 years from now. I should like to invite attention to what is involved. It touches an amount equal to one quarter of 1 percent of the money that is carried in the bill. That is the total sum. It is in the neighborhood of about $16 million. If there is any virtue in that kind of attitude on the bill, we ought to start reducing every appropria- tion by half if we are to make any prog- ress in that direction. In my judgment, at best the proposal is only a gesture; therefore I trust that the amendment will be rejected. FARM PARITY DOWN?NO TIME TO RAISE CONGRESSIONAL SALARIES Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Sen- ator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT, Mr. President, I wonder if the minority leader would yield me an extra minute on the bill. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R0005000500t1-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE mediate consideration of the four measures referred to? There being no objection, the concur- rent resolution (H. Con. Res. 300) au- thorizing the disposal of approximately 98,000 long tons of pig tin from the na- tional stockpile was considered and agreed to. The excerpts from the report (No. 1166) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are as follows: PURPOSE This resolution would grant congressional consent to the disposal of 98,000 long tons of pig tin now held in the national stockpile. TI N A notice of a proposed disposal of 98,000 short tons of pig tin was published in the Federal Register on March 27. 1964, 29 F.R. 3838, and the Congress was asked to approve the disposal. On July 26. 1963, the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning established a revised stockpile objective for tin at 200.000 long tons. As of May 15, 1964, the quantity of tin in inventory in excess of this objective, after sales commitments, was 123,541 long tons. Of this excess quantity 25,541 long tons remained to be sold from a disposal program of 50.000 long tons approved by House Concurrent Resolution 4'73. which was agreed to by the House on June 1, 1962, and by the Senate on June 21. 1962. Hence the quantity of tin in the national stockpile that is excess to requirements and that has not been previously approved for disposal Is ap- proximately 98,000 long tons. Consumption of tin within the United States declined from 83,000 long tons in 1929 to about 55.000 long tons in 1963. Consump- tion throughout the free world has shown a steady increase in the last 5 years?from 136.000 long tons in 1958 to 158,500 long tons In 1963. This free world consumption is esti- mated to increase to 175,000 long tons an- nually by 1968. Free world production of tin has increased over that of 5 years ago, but it has not kept pace with consumption. The output has increased from 121.124 long tons in 1968 to 146,700 long tons in 1963 and this Is expected to increase to 158.200 long tons by 1968. The estimate consequently is that there will be a deficit of about 20,000 long tons annually over the long term. The disposal plan for tin contemplates that the 25,541 long tons that are the remaining unsold balance under House Concurrent Resolution 473 of the 87th Congress will be merged with the 98,000 long tons that are the subject of this resolution. The total excess will be (Reposed of over a period of approximately 6 to 8 years. The General Services Administration has announced that It expects to dispose of approximately 20.000 long tons of tin during the first year of the program and that the disposal plan will be reviewed at least annually by the Adminis- trator of General Services in consultation with other Interested departments and agencies. LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE The objective of this resolution is similar to Senate Concurrent Resolution 77, intro- duced by the senior Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON ] FISCAL DATA The average acquisition coat of the pig tin in the national stockpile was 41.0855 per pound. The average return to the Govern- ment from the disposal action authorized by House Concurrent Resolution 473 of the 87th Congress has been $1.26 per pound. The current market prices for pig tin are in the range of $1.50 to $1.56 per pound. The General Services Administration estimates that the price for pig tin will continue to remain favorable for this disposal action. DISPOSAL OF MOLYBDENUM FROM THE NATIONAL STOCKPME The bill (HR. 11235) to authorize the disposal, without regard to the prescribed 6-month waiting period, of approximate- ly 11 million pounds of molybdenum from the national stockpile was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. The excerpts from the report (No. 1163) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are, as follows: PURPOSE This bill would (I) grant congressional approval for the disposal of 11 million pounds of molybdenum now held in the national stockpile, and (2) waive the 6-month waiting period ordinarily required before disposals of strategic and critical materials may be made from the national stockpile. MOLIRDENU M Molybdenum is a basic industrial raw ma- terial used chiefly In the manufacture of al- loy. steels, and chemicals. An uninterrupted supply of this material Is essential to the economies of highly Industrialized nations. The United States is the largest producer and consumer of molybdenum In the world. U.S. production was 66 million pounds In 1963. The only other significant supplies of molybdenum available to the free world are In Chile, which now produces about 5 million pounds annually. U.S. consumption of molybdenum has in- creased from 24 million pounds In 1958 to 48 million pounds in 1963. Although produc- tion in the United States exceeds domestic consumption, the strong demand for molyb- denum by other industrialized countries of the free world has created pressure upon the supplies of the U.S. producers. The committee was Informed that U.S. producers of molybdenum are taking steps to meet increased demands from ample mo- lybdenum ore reserves but that because of the lag between consumer demand and pro- duction a balance between demand and sup- ply Is not immediately foreseeable and the present shortage may continue for some time. Thla gives the Government an oppor- tunity to dispose of some excess molybdenum and also to satisfy an urgent immediate need for the material in our domestic Industry. If this bill Is approved the General Serv- ices Administration plans an initial gales offering of 2 million pounds on a competi- tive basis. Subsequent ofierings would be made periodically, depending upon the eval- uation of previous sales and of existing market conditions. Disposals would be lim- ited to domestic consumption. The current stockpile objective for molyb- denum is 68 million pounds. The inventory in the national stockpile is slightly more than 79 million pounds. This bill would per- mit the disposal of all the molybdenum that Is surplus to stockpile objectives. FISCAL DATA The average acquisition coat of molyb- denum In the national stockpile was $1.06 per pound. Current market prices are ap- proxlmately $1.55 per pound. Disposals un- der House Concurrent Resolution 473 of the 87th Congress resulted in an average return to the Government of 11.448 per pound. BALE OF ZINC The bill (H.R. 11004) to authorize the sale, without regard to the 6-month period prescribed, of zinc proposed to be disposed of pursuant to the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, was considered, ordered to a third read- ing, read the third time, and passed. 15281 The excerpts from the report (No. 1165) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are. as follows: PURPOSE This bill would (1) grant congressional approval for the disposal of approximately 75.000 short tons of zinc now held in the national stockpile. and (2) waive the 6- month waiting period ordinarily required before disposals of strategic and critical ma- terials may be made from the national stockpile. 7 INC Zinc that would be disposed of under this bill is excess to present mobilization requirements of the Government. The cur- rent stockpile objective for zinc is zero. The Inventory of zinc in the national stock- pile Is 1,580,643 short tons. Within the last 2 years U.S. consumption of zinc has reached near record levels- 1.013.831 short tons in 1962, and 1.081,354 short tons In 1963. The year of record con- sumption was 1953. when 1,119,812 short tons were used. The consumption of zinc in the United States is primarily by the automotive indus- try, which uses the material in dye castings and for galvanizing. Use of zinc in the production of automobiles is increasing and the present estimate is that zinc consump- tion in 1964 will surpass the record year of 1955. Domestic mine production of zinc ore is Insufficient to meet our requirements. As a result, the United States depends upon foreign sources of supply for almost one- half of the smelting ores needed here. The U.S. consumption of zinc has exceeded do- mestic production by about 100,000 short tons a year for the past 2 years. Consumers In the United States are experiencing diffi- culties in securing needed supplies. The excess zinc in the rational stockpile is more than adequate to satisfy consumer needs that the producing Industry is now unable to fulfill. This condition affords the Govern- ment an opportunity to dispose of surplus zinc from the stockpile without an unfavor- able impact upon the market and it also meets an important industrial need. LEGIBLAT EVE REFERENCE The objective of this bill is similar to that of El. 2768. which was introduced by the junior Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG). FISCAL DATA The average acquisition cost of zinc in the national stockpile was 60.1449 per pound. Current market prices range from $0.1350 to $0.1475 per pound. The General Services Ad- ministration estimates that the price of zinc will continue to remain favorable during the period of the proposed disposal action. SALE OF LEAD The bill (H.R. 11257) to authorize the sale, without regard to the 6-month waiting period prescribed, of lead pro- posed to be disposed of pursuant to the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock- Piling Act was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. The excerpts from the report ,No. 1164) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are, as follows: PURPOSE This bill would (1) grant congressional ap- proval for the disposal of 50,000 tons of lead now held In the national stockpile, and (2) waive the 6-month waiting period ordinarily required before disposals of strategic and critical materials may be made from the na- tional stockpile. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196.4 Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 minute on the bill to the Senator from South Dakota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I shall support the Williams amendment. It seems to me that if nothing else can be said about the proposed pay raise bill, it can be recorded as the masterpiece of bad timing of the 20th century. A 33-percent increase in our salaries has been proposed at a time when we have recently increased, once again, the national debt limit, at a time when we have denied the people a reduction in excise taxes which the Senate voted and surrendered in conference and at a time when the whole agricultural economy of our country is in the doldrums. I do not believe that anyone could have con- ceived a worst time in which to propose this kind of bill to propose increasing congressional salaries. However, with the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] it seems to me that we could in good conscience support the pro- posed legislation. First. The amendment would not delay for one single second increasing the sal- ary of anyone in the Federal Govern- ment who is receiving less than $20,000. I am strongly in favor of the legitimate pay increases suggested for these lower income Federal employees. Second. The proposal would afford an inducement to the policymakers of our country?who are the people in Congress and in the executive department who are getting over $20,000?to develop some economic programs which will stimulate our economy so that we can have a bal- anced budget. I see nothing in the record of expendi- tures on the part of the policymakers thus far that should give them a 33%- percent increase in salary, because they have consistently kept our country in the red. Surely the policymakers in the executive and legislative branches of Government deserve no bonus in the form of pay increases for a record of that kind. Mr. President, I point out what has happened to the agricultural economy as an example of our failures. This morning in my office I received the re- lease from the Department of Agricul- ture for June on agricultural prices. The release shows that parity for farmers in this country has dropped to 74 percent. That is the lowest since August 1939. It represents another full point drop from a month ago. The proposal comes at a time when those engaged in the beef industry in this country are going broke because of imports and poor prices, and at a time when farmers generally are receiving prices which are only 74 percent of par- ity. It seems to me highly logical and persuasive that we should defer the pro- posed increase in salaries for ourselves, for judges in retirement, and for policy- makers who are earning over $20,000 a year until such time as we have pro- duced programs?and we have enacted them?which will provide for a balanc- ing of the budget. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE This New Frontier idea of voting our- selves a 331/3-percent increase in salaries out of borrowed money does not add up as sound or right in anyone's arithmetic book. We ought to consider the Wil- liams proposal seriously and say to the policymakers, "All right. Your policies have failed. You have been consistently putting this country into the red, in this time of peace and prosperity. You have submerged the agricultural economy to 74 percent of parity. Come forth with something worthwhile. Come forward with some economies. Come up with some stimulus and incentive to indus- try, business, and agriculture so we can produce the money to balance the budget. Then will be the time to in- crease the salaries of those in the higher salary brackets who hold the responsi- bility for policymaking in our Govern- ment. Perhaps the inducement of a pay raise predicated on a better performance record will help get the sensible solutions our problems require." Our present Federal policies, Mr. President, are failing our American farmers and ranchers very seriously. This administration was elected on the promise of "parity prices for agricul- ture." Instead, import practices and Department of Agriculture policies forced through a Congress which this administration dominates by a 2-to-1 majority have put parity prices so low they are averaging from 8 to 10 percent lower than during the Eisen- hower Republican years. Look at the record. In June of 1960 under Eisen- hower, parity stood at 78 percent; and in June of 1961 was still 78 percent; in June of 1962 it remained at 78 percent with no progress toward the promised goal of 100 percent 'parity prices for farmers. By June of 1963 parity had dropped in fact to '77 percent and in June of this year?as of today?it has sagged to 74 percent. Policymakers paid over $20,000 or more per year surely deserve no pay increase for that type of record and neither do the Members of this Con- gress. I should add that during every other June of the Eisenhower administration parity ranged from 81 to 92 per- cent, so we have had a total drop from the first year of the Republican admin- istration parity level of 92 percent for farm prices in 1953 to 74 percent of par- ity today?a total drop during these past 11 years of 18 percent. As a Senator from a farm State I cannot in good con- science vote for a pay-increase bill rais- ing by some 33% percent the salaries of policymakers now receiving over $20,000 per year in the face of such a sorry rec- ord of performance. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me 1 minute on the bill to ask the Senator from South Da- kota a question? Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Ohio. The PRESIDING OFFICER,. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, re- tired Supreme Court Judges are receiv- ing $35,000 for life. They are inactive. 15283 We have also inactive judges of the cir- cuit courts of appeals and the district court of the United States. Does the Senator know that everyone of those in- active judges who are presently receiv- ing, respectively, $35,000 a year, $25,500, and $22,500 would have the benefit of the proposed increase? Mr. MUNDT. Yes, the Senator knows that. In addition the Senator from South Dakota knows something else. He knows that the judges' plush lifetime pension of full salaries is a noncontribn- tory pension to which the judges con- tribute not one single dime. It is paid for entirely by the taxpayers. I do not think that now is the time to reward them with an increase in retirement benefits paid for by borrowed money. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Sena- tor from Colorado. Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the amendment, I wish to speak briefly on it. Yesterday many Senators who were supporting the bill referred to the U.S. Government as the largest corporation in the world. They said that, therefore, we ought to pay the executives com- mensurate salaries and bring them up to the levels proposed in the bill. ? I submit to the Senate that if we actually had a corporation with a board of directors which had consistently op- erated that corporation in the red for many years, and is now programing a period of continuing activity to run it in the red for the next 7 or 8 years, there would be short shrift for the members of the executive department who were operating that corporation. The amendment would provide an in- centive for those who are operating the so-called corporation?the Members of the House, the Senate, and the executive department downtown?to change the operation from one which is in the red to one which is in the black in order to try to get some kind of balanced budget. The PRESIDING ateriCER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who yields time? The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS]. The yeas and nays have been ordered? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I will take the 1 minute re- maining on my amendment. I call attention to the fact that only last week the Congress rejected the re- peal of retail excise taxes on the theory that we could not finance the deficit on borrowed money. How can we tell the people that we could not cut taxes be- cause we cannot finance the deficit on borrowed money but that we can in- crease our own salaries by 33 1/3 percent and do not mind doing it with borrowed money? We were told last week that $7 billion of the $9 billion request for an increase in the debt ceiling this year is to make up the loss in revenues resulting from the tax cut of last January. Here is another $500 or $600 million increase in salaries. I am proposing, under the amendment, to postpone the effective date of the in- crease of salaries in excess of $20,000 un- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15284 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE til we can demonstrate to the American people that we are worthy of it and can earn it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an editorial which appeared in the Washington Daily News of Tuesday, June 30, in which it was pointed out that the Senate of the United States cannot recover its prestige solely by Increasing the salaries of its Members. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD. al follows: PRESTIGV?DIGNITY 7?STATUS? Senator OLIN Jonarerrosr, Democrat, of South Carolina, and his colleagues of the Senate Poet Office and Civil Service Com- mittee have now formally recommended In a written report that all Senators and Repre- sentatives be paid an additional V.500 a year. Their bill, scheduled for Senate action this week, also provides pay increases for all other Federal employees, judges, congressional help, and postmasters. It follows the pattern of the one passed by the House and ups the lawmakers' pay from 822,800 to $30,000 a year. The Johnston report argues that the "In- creasing cost of serving in Washington" Is one reason for the pay increase, not men- tioning that no Congressman ever was hog- tied and made to take his job. He sought it of his own free will, and was glad enough to get it. But when the report says that "also in- volved (in the proposed pay increase) is the prestige, dignity, and status of the Congress and its Members," it is indulging In as ri- diculous a bit of sophistry as we've ever seen In a congressional report. Senators should know money won't buy prestige. If it's prestige they want, let them write a law (and obey It) to end con- gressional conflicts of interest and set up a rigid and honest congressional code of ethics. If it's dignity they want, more pay won't assure it, but an end of nepotism might. And If it's status they so greatly desire, they should know that raiding the Treasury in their own behalf won't achieve It. Let them seek status by putting an end to sponging on the Federal Treasury with lush Government-paid junkets disguised as fact- finding or Investigative trips, and let them pass an honest clean elections law to assure complete and instant disclosure of all cam- paign contributions and expenditures. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Delaware has expired. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Joitarsacisi] has 1 minute remaining. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield back my time, and I ask for a vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has been yielded back. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED- MONDSON] is absent on official business. I announce that the Senator from In- diana [Mr. BAYR1, the Senator from California I Mr. ENGLE1, and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are absent because of illness. I further announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. SM1THERSI and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] Would each vote "nay." Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COT- TON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FOND], and the Senator from Massachu- setts [Mr. SavroNsrata I are necessarily absent. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] would vote "nay." The result was announced? yeas 26, nays 65, as follows: (No 481 Leg.( Bennett Boggs Byrd, Va. Church Dominick Ellender Goldwater Ifruska Aiken Allott Anderson Bart lett Beall Bible Brewster Burdick Byrd. W. Va. Cannon Carlson Case Clark Cooper Dirksen Dodd Douglas Eastland Ervin Fulhright flora Gruelling Bayh Cotton Edmondson YEAS-28 Jorden. Idaho Lau,che McClellan McGovern Mechem Miller Mundt Pearson Proxmire NAYS-85 Hart Hartke Hayden Hickenlooper Rill Holland Hum phrey Inouye Jackson Jayne Joh nston Jordan, NC. Keating Kuchel Long, Mo. Long, La. Magnuson Mansfield McCarthy McGee McIntyre McN Amara Robertson Russell Simpson Talmadge Thurmond Tower Williams, Del, Young, Obit) Metcalf Monroney Morse Morton Moss liuskie Nelson Neuberger Pastore Pell Prouty Randolph Ribicoff Scott Smith Sparkman Stennis Symington Walters Williams, N.J. Young, N. Dak. NOT VOTING-9 Engle Fong Kennedy Saltonistall Smathers Yarborough So the amendment offered by Mr. Wrt- LIMAS of Delaware, for himself and other Senators, was rejected. EltECUTIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the Sen- ate proceed to the consideration of ex- ecutive business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of execu- tive business. By Mr. RUSSELL, from the Committee on Armed Services, reported the following nominations: Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, U.S. Army, for ap- pointment as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Barksdale Hamlett, U.S. Army, to be placed on the retired list In the grade of general; Lt. Gen. Harold Keith Johnson, U.S. Army, for appointment as Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, In the grade of general; and Lt. Gen. Creighton Williams Abrams, Jr., Army of the United States (colonel, U.S. Army), to be assigned to a position of impor- tance and responsibility designated by the President-, In the grade of general while so serving. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate may July 2 consider the nominations of certain Army officers, whose nominations I have just reported. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nominations will be stated. IN THE U.S. ARMY The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, U.S. Army, for appointment as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Gen. Barksdale Hamlett, US. Army, to be placed on the retired list in the grade of general. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Lt. Gen, Harold Keith Johnscn, U.S. Army, for appointment as Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, in the grade of gen- eral. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Lt. Gen. Creighton Williams Abrams, Jr., Army of the United States (colonel, U.S. Army), to be assigned to a position of importance and responsi- bility designated by the President, in the grade of general while so serving. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the confirma- tion of the nominations. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the President will be notified forthwith. LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate re- sume the consideration of legislative business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the Senate resumed the consideration legislativ.a business. Ne' GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARY REFORM ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the considera- tion of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of cer- tain officers and employees in the Fed- eral Government, and for other pur- poses. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1087. The PRESIDING OVEICER. The amendment will be stated. The legislative clerk proceeded to state the amendment. Mr. MORSE. I ask unanimous con- sent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with, and that it be printed in the RECORD at this point. I can Ex- plain it very quickly. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15285 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, IS as follows: TITLE VI That each Member of the Senate and House of Representatives (including each Delegate and Resident Commissioner); each officer and employee of the United States who (1) receives a salary at a rate of $10,000 or more per annum or (2) holds a position of grade GS-15 or above, and each officer in the Armed Forces of the rank of colonel, or its equiva- lent, and above; and each member, chair- man, or other officer of the national commit- tee of a political party shall file annually with the Comptroller General a report con- taining a full and complete statement of? ( 1) the amount and resources of all in- come and gifts (of $100 or more in money or value, or in the case of multiple gifts from one person, aggregating $100 or more in money or value) received by him or any person on his behalf during the preceding calendar year; (2) the value of each asset held by or en- trusted to him or by or to him and any other person and the amount of each liability owed by him, or by him together with any other person as of the close of the preceding year; and (3) the amount and source of all contri- butions during the preceding calendar year to any person who received anything of value on his behalf or subject to his direction or control or who, with his acquiescence, makes payments for any liability or expense in- curred by him. SEC. 2. Each person required by the first section to file reports shall, in addition, file semiannually with the Comptroller General a report containing a full and complete statement of all dealings in securities or commodities by him, or by any person acting on his behalf or pursuant to his direction, during the preceding six-month period. Szo. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsec- tion (b), the reports required by the first section of this Act shall be filed not later than March 31 of each year; and the reports required by section 2 shall be filed not later than July 31 of each year for the six-month period ending June 30 of such year, and not later than January 31 of each year for the six-month period ending December 31 of the preceding year. (b) In the case of any person required to file reports under this Act whose service ter- minates prior to the date prescribed by sub- section (a) as the date for filing any report, such report shall be filed on the last day of such person's service, or on such later date, not more than three months after the termi- nation of such service, as the Comptroller General may prescribe. SEC. 4. The reports required by this Act shall be in such form and detail as the Comptroller General may prescribe. The Comptroller General may provide for the grouping of items of income, sources of in- come, assets, liabilities, and dealings in se- curities or commodities, when separate itemi- zation is not feasible or not necessary for an accurate disclosure of a person's income, net worth, or dealings in securities, and com- modities. SEC. 5. Any person who willfully fails to file a report required by this Act or who will- fully and knowingly files a false report shall be fined $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. SEC. 6. (a) As used in this Act? (1) the term "income" means gross in- come as defined in section 22(a) of the In- ternal Revenue Code. (2) The term "security" means security as defined in section. 2 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (U.S.C., title 15, sec. 77b). No. 133----8 (3) The term "commodity" means com- modity as defined in section 2 of the Com- modity Exchange Act, as amended (TI.S.C., title 7, sec. 2) . (4) the term "dealings in securities or commodities" means any exquisition, hold- ing, withholding, use, transfer, disposition, or other transaction involving any security or commodity. (5) The term "person" includes an indi- vidual, partnership, trust, estate, associa- tion, corporation, or society. (b) For the purposes of any report required by this Act, a person shall be considered to be a Member of the Senate or House of Rep- resentatives, an officer or employee of the United States and of the armed services as described in the first section of this Act, or a member, chairman, or other officer of the na- tional committee of a political party, if he served (with or without compensation) in any such position during the period to be covered by such report, not withstanding that his service may have terminated prior to December 31 of such calendar year. SEC. 7. The Comptroller General shall have authority to issue, reissue, and amend rules and regulations governing the publication of reports, or any part of them. He shall pre- scribe fees to cover the cost of reproduction. In formulating such rules and regulations, he shall seek to maximize the availability of reports for purposes of informing the pub- lic and agencies and officials of the Federal and local government, and to minimize use of such records for private purposes. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this is the Morse full disclosure bill offered as an amendment to the pending bill. I first introduced it in 1946. For many years I could not even obtain a hearing on the bill. However, last year hearings were held on the bill, along with hearings on other disclosure bills which had been in- troduced from time to time in the inter- vening years, particularly in recent years. The essence of the bill covers these points: Anyone hi Federal employment receiv- ing $10,000 or more a year shall be re- quired to make a full disclosure once each year in accordance with regulations drawn and on forms supplied by the Comptroller General on the matters found at page 2 of the bill, starting at line 3: (1) the amount and resources of all in- come and gifts (of $100 or more in money or value, or in the case of multiple gifts from one person, aggregating $100 or more In money or value) received by him or any person on his behalf during the preceding calendar year; (2) the value of each asset held by or entrusted to him or by or to him and any other person and the amount of each liability owed by him, or by him together with any other person as of the close of the preceding year; and (3) the amount and source of all con- tributions during the preceding calendar year to any person who received anything of value on his behalf or subject to his direction or control or who, with his ac- quiescence, makes payments for any liability or expense incurred by him. The penalties are set out at the bottom of page 3 as follows: SEC. 5. Any person who willfully fails to file a report required by this Act or who will- fully and knowingly files a false report shall be fined $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. Mr. President, Senators know the po- sition I have taken on this matter. I have told the majority leader that I shall not consume much time on the amend- ment. He has agreed to my having a yea or nay vote on it. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MORSE. Working for the Fed- eral Government or receiving one's live- lihood from the Federal Government is not a matter of right, but a matter of privilege and opportunity. The American people are entitled to know the sources of all income of offi- cials of the Government so that they can be the judges of what may be, if any, the relationship between the sources of Income and the course of action that Fed- eral employees may take in any partic- ular matter. I first introduced the bill in 1946 when I became disturbed by what was rec- ognized at that time, namely, certain Members of Congress taking advantage of their position, and taking advantage of certain privileged information that they had, to profit thereby financially. That danger always lurks, although I am proud to tell the American people that in my 20 years as a Member of the Senate I have served with an overwhelm- ing majority of honorable men and wom- en who are dedicated public servants and who are entitled to the trust of the American people. But I also know the importance of sur- veillance. I know the importance of hav- ing a procedure that will protect the hon- orable and the honest. The full-dis- closure bill, for which I have fought for so many years, involves a matter of right?the right of the American people to know. In essence, that is my case, I rest my case. I reserve whatever time I may have remaining, should I decide to yield any of it. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. MONRONEY. On page 2, line 3, the text of my copy reads "amount and resources." Mr. MORSE. It should be "sources." Mr. MONRONEY. Should it be "sources"? Mr. MORSE. "Sources." That is a typographical error. It should be "sources." Mr. MONRONEY. I am glad to have that correction, because that would in- clude the identification of all income, whether it be employment, private busi- ness, farming, speechmaking, or any- thing of that kind. Mr. MORSE. That is correct; it is all encompassing. The error in the amend- ment is a printer's error; it is not my error. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes? Mr. MORSE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLARK. It is true that the Sena- tor from Oregon was the first Member, especially in this body, to propose a con- flict-of-interest bill. There are a num- ber of us who have come to the Senate more recently who share in general, al- though not in particular, his views. Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050991-9 15286 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Maul, the Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEUBERGER], the Senator from New Jer- sey IMr. Casa], and I have had pending for some time before the Committee on Rules and Administration a somewhat similar bill. It is perhaps a matter of undue pride of authorship that we believe our bill is a little more artistically drawn. It has been revised a little more frequently in light of modern conditions and is perhaps a slightly better bill than that of the senior Senator from Oregon. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Sena- tor's bill adequately raise the important question of conflict of interest. I support it fully. I had intended to make a rather sub- stantial speech in support of my amend- ment, but I shall not do so because of the unanimous consent agreement which has curtailed our time. I ask the senior Senator from Oregon for the privilege of cosponsoring his amendment, and I shall vote for it. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President. I have always considered the Senator from Pennsylvania a cosponsor with me in spirit and intent. I am delighted to have his name added to the amendment. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio; then I shall yield 1 minute to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Within a few weeks after I took my oath in this Cham- ber in 1959, I filed with the Secretary of the Senate a complete statement of my financial holdings at that time. Because I was a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I sold certain sugar stocks that I owned; and because I was also a member of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, sold some Pan American World Airways stock. which I suspected might conflict with my service on that committee. I made a complete disclosure of my fin- anoial holdings at that time, so that the citizens of Ohio, whose servant / am, could judge from my votes and my work as their Senator whether or not I was motivated by any selfish purpases in cast- ing any votes. I compliment the senior Senator from Oregon on the fact that he was a pioneer In proposing conflict-of-Interest legisla- tion. I am somewhat proud of the fact that I was the very first Senator to file a com- plete statement of assets and financial holdings. Earlier this year and on other occa- sions between January 1959, and the present time, I have filed similar reports with the Secretary of the Senate and have made them public. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Ohio has ex- pired. Mr. MORSE. I yield 3 additional min- utes to the Senator from Ohio. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. This year I filed with the Secretary of the Senate, in ad- dition, certified copies of the income tax returns filed last year and the year before by Mrs. Young and me. Mr. President. the pending pay raise bill will cost taxpayers more than $584 million a year. Furthermore, as the Federal bureaucracy grows, the price tag for this increase will grow with it. I cannot in good conscience support the bill in its present form. At least four separate legislative proposals were arbitrarily lumped together in this bill providing a pay increase for: postal em- ployees, classified civil service employees, all other members of the executive branch of our Government; also the Federal judiciary; also employees on the staffs of Members of the Congress; and finally Members of Congress. I had hoped that a separate bill would be introduced for letter carriers, postal clerks, and in fact all postal employees who I feel are the most deserving of an increase in pay at this time. Legislative proposals to accomplish this should be debated and acted upon separate and apart from the pending bill. Such a legislative proposal, I believe, would pass overwhelmingly. I would like to vote for that part of this bill relating to letter carriers and other postal workers in the lower pay brackets. Frankly, I do not believe that a valid argument has been made for increasing the salaries of all civil service employees. There may be? and undoubtedly there are some?posi- tions for which competent people can- not be found because of the salaries offered. For those position I suggest that specific legislation be enacted to correct the problem. I do not see why American taxpayers should have to foot the bill for king-size salary increases for over a million civil service employees just to lure a comparatively few highly skilled people into Government service. It is my observation that most Govern- ment employees in Washington and else- where are and have been well paid in comparison with those doing the same work in private industry. Furthermore, those in the classified civil service have job security, sick leave and fringe and retirement benefits far superior to em- ployees in private industry. Mr. President, regarding the salary increase for Members of the Congress, it Is my view that we must set an example by holding the line on wage costs. The President has urged a maximum hold- the-line raise of 3.2 percent in wages and prices. This bill will give Representa- tives arid Senators a 331/3-percent In.- crease. Frankly, I do not believe that an increase of this magnitude is warranted at this time. I seriously doubt whether there would be any additional candidates for election to the Congress because of the proposed pay raise. No doubt the same men and women would be elected or returned to the Congress. The fact Is that very few men and women of high achievement in private life would refuse appointment or certain election to the Senate of the United States, or practi- cally certain election to the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I am glad to note that the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee deleted the so-called Udall amendment to the bill as passed by the House of Representatives. In my view it would be unconscionable to tie the salaries of Congressmen and top Federal officials to future pay increases for Fed- July 2 eral employees in general. I commend our colleagues on the committee for vot- ing unanimously to delete this provision from the proposed legislation. As for the staffs of Members of the Congress, and of committees of the Con- gress. I see no valid reason whatsoever for a salary increase at this time. Sena- tors and Representatives receive ample allowances to hire personnel. These are among the most sought after jobs in Washington. As a matter of fact, every summer we are besieged with requests from young people attending our finest colleges and universities who wish to work without salary for the experience of participating in governmental activ- ities. I am sure that many of my col- leagues at this time have interns, so- called, on their staffs who are not drawing pay. I say this merely to em- phasize the fact that congressional staff positions do not go begging because of present salary levels. Frankly, I have not heard any of my colleagues express the opinion that they are unable to obtain qualified personnel for their staffs because of present salary limitations. Nor have I heard the chair- men of various committees of the Con- gress complain that they are unable to staff their committees because of salary limitations. It should be remembered that employees on senatorial staffs do not have to maintain a residence in their home State as well as one in Washing- ton as Senators do. Frankly, I do not believe that the great majority of our assistants are overworked or underpaid. Many of them?for the most part those on committee staffs?seem to have plen- ty of time to line the walls of the cham- ber and watch proceedings out of curios- ity when business is being conducted and when Senators are working and voting on legislation of great public interest. Most receive liberal vacations, are not limited by civil service sick-leave require- ments, and at the same time are entitled to all civil service fringe benefits. I seri- ously question whether a pay increase is required for congresisonal staff em- ployees. Are any of them required to spend money campaigning for the well- paid positions they hold? Of course not. Whenever there is a vacancy on the Federal bench, many, sometimes hun- dreds, of competent lawyers seek the ap- pointment. There are at most but a few hundred lawyers in our Nation, who, if offered an appointment to the Fed- eral bench, would not accept. Very few lawyers would refuse appointment as U S. judge at $22.500 a year but would agree to accept were the salary to be increased to $30,000. I would like to know the name of one man in the Nation who would refuse appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest honor a law- yer may receive, solely because this po- sition pays $35,000 a year and not $42,500. There are Federal judges today in Ohio and in most other States who have reached retirement age and could have retired years ago. Evidently, they Co not feel that they are being underpaid as many continue to serve actively well beyond the retirement age of threescore and ten. Furthermore, it would be dead Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15287 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 1964 wrong to increase the salaries paid to those judges who have retired. This bill would do that. Mr. President, our Government can- not afford to depend upon men and wom- en born to great wealth or who have ac- quired great wealth to run its affairs. None of us wants that. On the other hand, the Federal Government cannot be absolutely competitive with private industry. Our Government's only source of in- come for paying salaries is the taxpayer who already is bearing a heavy burden. The purpose of Government is service whereas the purpose of industry is profit. If the goal is to try to match the pay scale of private industry, then we must accept the fact that the proposed bill is only the first installment. We should realize that the Federal Government should not match the salaries of private industry. We shall always have to rely to a marked degree on many citizens who desire to serve their Government as a public service. Mr. President, in my judgment this legislation proposes salary increases which are overly generous and in some instances outrageous. It appears to me that there should be separate legislative proposals for the different categories of Federal employees involved. Then the needs of each could be carefully studied and a pay raise considered on the merits of each. This is not the time to indulge in self - indulgence, to indiscriminately fatten the already well-larded Federal payroll. Our national economy simply cannot af- ford the luxury of this bill at this time. Therefore, after full and thorough con- sideration, I cannot, hi good conscience, vote for the pending bill. This bill to which I object proposes a raid on the Public Treasury. Long ago it was written: Enter ye the strait gate: for wide,is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and nar- row is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be who find it. The gate to the Public Treasury is wide, and broad is the way. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Ohio has ex- pired. Mr. MORSE. I have many times highly commended the Senator from Ohio. I commend him again for his leadership in the Senate in trying to bring an end to conflict-of-interest prob- lems. Mr. President, I now yield 1 minute to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be per- mitted to join the distinguished Senator from Oregon as a cosponsor of his amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DOUGLAS. Thirteen years ago, when I was chairman of the Committee on Ethics in Government, this was the recommendation our committee made. I have tried to follow through with the recommendations of that committee by voluntarily submitting this year a de- tailed statement of my holdings and in- come from various sources. Mr. MORSE. I have always been greatly indebted to the Senator from Ill- inois for the help that he has given and for the leadership he has extended to the Senate on this issue. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may join the Senator from Oregon as a cosponsor of his amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MORSE. I am happy to have the Senator from New Jersey as a cosponsor. Mr. CASE. What the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLaaxl said is, of course, true. We have been less long in the Senate than the Senator from Ore- gon, but almost as long, in relation to our service, as sponsors of, almost in- dentical bills ourselves. My own inspiration comes largely from the work done by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Doom..As] some years ago in connection with the committee which he headed, and which looked into the matter of making recommendations, the key of which was disclosure. It is clear from both old and modern history in this body that the Senate will not police itself, and there is no outside body adequate to do it. It is necessary to rely on the principle of disclosure. I think it is essential that we adopt it as quickly as possible. I am happy to join the Senator from Oregon in the offering of his amend- ment. Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield 2 minutes? Mr. MORSE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New York. Mr. KEATING. With the consent of the distinguished Senator from Oregon, I ask unanimous consent that I may be joined as a cosponsor of his amendment. I feel it is most important that we adopt conflict-of-interest legislation before voting any pay increase for oursalves. I fully support the amendment of the Senator from Oregon and if it should not succeed, I shall offer my amendment, No. 1092, thereafter, in an effort to at least deal at this time with the problem of outside income and investments for Members of Congress and their staffs. It is unfortunate that the congressional pay raise provisions have been tied to the proposed pay raises to our postal workers and classified employees. There is no question as to the merit of these increases for the employees in the postal and civil service. It would be completely false economy to keep their salaries at present levels. This Nation is most fortunate in having the highest caliber of employees in the classified service and the postal system. We can- not expect these talented and dedicated employees to remain in Government service at bargain basement wages. Pay raises to postal workers and classified employees will not, in my judg- ment, be inflationary. They are an in- vestment in Government efficiency and morale which will pay rich dividends in Improved public service. Congress has an obligation to live up to the promises of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962. We adopted what I consider to be an eminently fair and reasonable approach to the problem by providing that Federal salaries would be as comparable as possible with those paid in private industry for the same type of work. We are now on the threshold of the first test of this enlightened policy. It is incumbent upon us to prove our good faith to those who have worked for the Federal Government in reliance upon this promise. Postal workers and classi- fied employees have not reneged on their obligation to give an honest day's work for a day's pay. We in turn must not renege on our compensation promises of 1962 to give an honest day's pay in re- turn. Be it merit, comparability or cost of living increases, these Federal employees who are legally denied some of the means of redress enjoyed by their counterparts in private industry to secure wage in- creases, deserve fair treatment at this bargaining table. Despite other defects in the Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964, there can be no withdrawal from our obligation to ap- prove the reasonable salary increases to the postal and classified employees. I shall, therefore, support the bill. We have already enacted broad con- flict-of-interest legislation applicable to employees in the postal and civil service. What we want to do now is remove any suggestion of a double standard by apply- ing similar obligations to the legislative branch. I commend the Senator from Oregon fol. his efforts and am pleased to join with him. Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator from New York. I appreciate his sup- port. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the name of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] be added as a cosponsor of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of the Senator from Oregon. After the Comptroller General received the reports, what would be done with them? Would they be reported back to the Senate, or would they be made public? Mr. MORSE. They would be pub- lished as a public document. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 2 minutes re- maining. Mr. MORSE. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Oregon a question? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does someone yield time to the Senator from Iowa? Mr. MORSE. I shall be happy to answer the Senator's question. Mr. MILLER. I invite the Senator's attention to the limitations on dis- closure in his amendment. I am wondering whether the Senator's amendment really would get the job Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 15288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE done. With respect to page 2, the first subsection, what about cases: an indi- vidual's spouse or his children, or his brothers or sisters, or his parents, or a trust over which he has control, of which he is the beneficiary? Mr. MORSE. I understand the prob- lem; we have discussed it many times. This is a good start. I am for going this far now. Mr. MILLER. I wonder if the Sena- tor would agree to expand the coverage. Mr. MORSE. Not at this time. We will do that next year. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. How much time does the Senator from Montana wish? Mr. MANSFIELD. Five minutes. Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment, not that I am not in accord with it, be- cause I am. The fact is, the distin- guished Senator from Oregon is the "granddaddy" of all these bills, although many others get credit for what he started about 18 years ago. It was his inspiration while I was a Member of the House which caused me to introduce similar legislation in that body. I be- lieve that I have introduced bills of that nature in the Senate as well. I believe I made a public statement that I have no outside interests; I am not engaged hi dealing in any properties. The only income I receive is on the basis of my service in this body. I point out to Senators that there is a resolution now on the calendar, Senate Resolution 337, reported by the Rules Committee, which may not go so far as some Senators wish, but I believe that I am correct in stating that there will be amendments to the resolution when it is reported to the floor. I assure Senators that Senate Resolu- tion 337 will come up in the Senate, and enough time can be taken to discuss the subject so that all facets of it can be explored. I do not believe that this is an appro- priate bill to which to attach this amend- ment. I believe more in the way of dis- cussion is needed, and will he forthcom- ing. I would hope, therefore, that on the basis of the promise made that the resolution will come up?and it was go- ing to come up, any way; it will be sub- ject to amendments?the proposal will not be accepted at this time. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield for a ques- tion? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. CLARK. Does not the Senator agree that the really substantial differ- ence between the Morse amendment and Senate Resolution 337, which was start- ed as the result of the Bobby Baker in- vestigation, is that the Morse amend- ment deals not only with the Senate. but also with the House, the executive arm of the Government and the armed serv- ices, requiring reporting by the Comp- troller General. Therefore It is a comp- rehensive disclosure amendment; where- as, the Bobby Baker resolution?if I may call it that?to which my friend the Senator from Montana refers, Ls confined strictly to the operations of the Senate, and it would be difficult. indeed, by ap- propriate amendment, to expand and take care of the other body and the executive arm. Mr. MANSFIELD. Difficult, but not impossible; and what the Senator has said otherwise is correct. But, I would hope that the Senate would spend more time on this most im- portant subject. I repeat, the "grand- daddy" of all those who have introduced amendments of this kind is the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE 1. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield? Mr. MANSFIELD I yield. Mr. CASE. I wonder whether we could inquire at this time whether Sen- ate Resolution 337 is technically subject to amendment by the provision of the Morse amendment or similar legisla- tion. It is a Senate resolution as op- posed to a bill, which the Senator's amendment really is. Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest, on my time, that the Senator make inquiry of the Chair on that point. Mr. CASE. May I inquire of the Par- liamentarian, through the courtesy of the majority leader, whether Senate Resolu- tion 337, when it comes to the floor, could be subject to amendment by of- fering it either as an amendment or a substitute to the provisions of the Morse amendment now pending? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian informs the Chair that legislative amendments would not be in order on the resolution. Mr. CASE. So, the Morse amendment would not be in order as an amendment to Senate Resolution 337? The PRESIDING OreICER. It would not. Mr. CASE. I thank the Chair. Mr. MANSFIELD. That was brought out by the Senator from Pennsylvania in his colloquy earlier. But, amend- ments would be in order? Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President. will the Senator from Montana yield at that point? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. MONRONEY. Is is not a fact that the report of the Rules Committee and the bill they have reported, being a mere resolution of the Senate, would not be subject to amendment involving the House. It would have to be changed to a Senate resolution in order to effec- tuate that, which would merely mean a reintroduction of any amendment that could offer an opportunity to both Houses to work their will on legislation specifically dealing with this most im- portant subject. Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is correct. There is a good deal of merit in this kind of resolution because of its eenesis. It applies primarily only be- cause of the incident which brought about the inquiry and, therefore, it may be a good place to start. July 2 Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator from Montana yield to rue for 2 minutes? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, this amendment, and similar amendments, to me, seem to be The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Montana has expired. Who yields time to the Sen- ator from Iowa? Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Serator from South Carolina yield the time? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 3 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I do not wish to take more than a couple of minuses. I am against this resolution. I am against all resolutions of this kind, be- cause it is pretended that they are sur- rounded by an atmosphere of alleged righteousness. I do not believe they are. I have seen many self-righteous dec- larations of affluence, or lack of afflu- ence, filed by persons involved in pub- lic life. With the exception of one or two, they are not detailed, they are not Informative, and they do not disclose the facts; yet, they fly under the banner of disclosure. I am completely disgusted with the claim that some of these things have net the test of disclosure, of affluence, of property rights. Mr. President, so far as I personally am concerned, I probably am about the least affluent Member of this body. 1 do not own one share of stock. I do not own any bonds, except a very few Government bonds which I have managed to "scratch out" once in a while. I have not been able to accumulate any property which amounts to anything in approximately 34 years of public life, except that my house is paid for, and perhaps I have a few dollars in the bank. Probably one of the reasons why I might be opposed to this amendment is that I am ashamed to tell the truth that in my lifetime I have not become more affluent than I have. I have not done a single thing to be ashamed of. If any Senators wish to come and look at :ny assets, they are welcome to come and look at them. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield. Mr. CLARK. The Senator refers to his disgust at some who have undertaken to reveal their assets on the floor of the Senate. Let me ask this question, as one who did: Did the Senator refer to me and to the others who did so, and is he remain- ing within the confines of rule XIX, sec- tion 2? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I did not ex- press disgust with people. I expressed disgust with the form of the alleged dis- closure that occurred in a number of cases in public life. I said that I did not confine my re- marks to this body, or to any other body. There have been many occasions before Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 196.4 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE 15289 committees on which people have dis- closed assets in a manner which I believe does not meet the test of full disclosure. My remarks were made in general. Mr. CLARK.. I take it that the Sena- tor does not refer to any Senator; there- fore, I am happy to accept his apology. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The Senator may interpret my remarks any way he wishes. I made my remarks generally about people in public life. I have not circumscribed it or limited it. Again I say that so far as I am. per- sonally concerned I probably could be charged with being a little ashamed of the fact that during my lifetime, which has largely been spent in public office, I have failed to accumulate any great amount of this world's goods. I will say, furthermore, that I have never inherited a dollar in my life, so whatever I do not have is because I do not have it based on my own efforts. In a way, this creates a special aura of demagoguery. I do not think Senators of the United State's, or any respectable citizens in .the country should be forced to engage in a full disclosure of all his private affairs, business or otherwise. The people of his State pass on those things. They are the ones that judge the propriety or lack of propriety in his election. If any Member is guilty of shortcomings, maladministration of his office, or anything else, this body had the right to kick him out. This body has the right to police itself now. We have gone through some hearings which I think failed to go into many things that should have been gone into. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. But I think this particular proposal and this series of proposals do not merit support. They are singling out special groups for spe- cial odium. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield 2 more minutes to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. They are singling out for special odium or special consideration a certain group of people who should deserve the consideration of the respect given them by the voters of their State when they were sent here. If they have done wrong, let them be punished in the orderly way. If they violate the responsibility, the honor, and the dignity of this great office, let the Senate act on those particular occasions. From my standpoint, I have no hesi- tancy in saying that any Senator who wants to come and look at what I have is welcome to do it. And I will apologize because of my lack of ability to estab- lish, create, and accumulate affluence during the period of my public life. I have nothing to conceal. But it is a matter of basic principle. I am not going to vote to have every businessman of this country disclose his assets, or all of his reports on income tax, either. We have had a policy along that line for a long time. I do not think it is good legislation. I think it is belittling legis- lation. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The 'PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. MILLER. Is the amendment of the Senator from Oregon open to amend- ment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Sentaor from Oregon Is open to amendment. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the amend- ment of the Senator from Oregon. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state it for the information of the Senate. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Mr. MILLER proposes an amendment to the Morse amendment. On page 2, strike the semi- colon in line 8 and insert the following: ", by his spouse, children and their spouses, brothers and sisters, father and mother, and any trust or fiduciary ar- rangement under which any of said in- dividuals is a beneficiary or over which he or she exerts any control: Provided, That if said Member, officer, or employee is unable to file any information required hereby with respect to any of the indi- viduals or entities specified, other than his spouse and minor children, because of their refusal to provide such information, he shall file a statement, under oath, set- ting forth the name and relationship and the fact of such refusal." The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes. Mr. MILLER. I yield myself such time as I require. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Oregon that while the amendment he proposes has the semblance of merit to it, it does not go far enough. I do not think that the gen- eral public will be fooled one little bit. We all know that if one wants to avoid or evade some of the Purposes that are set forth in the Senator's amendment, that this can readily be done through the vehicle of using one's spouse, one's children, father, mother, brother, or sis- ter, or a trust, or the establishment of a fiduciary arrangement. Let us do a job if we are going to do a job. I do not think we ought to say, "We will do it tomorrow, or next year." If we are going to do it, now is the time. I do not think we are going to raise the stature of the Senate or of Congress one bit by the adoption of an amendment which goes only as far as the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. But if we are willing to couple with it various in- dividuals who, as a matter of common knowledge, are tied in with people who want to cover up?then I think we can get a job done that will cause the general public to have confidence in the integrity of those we are trying to cover by this measure. If we do not do it, I think we are going to be attempting to fool them. And I do not think they are going to be fooled, either. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it is not necessary to have the amendment of the Senator from Iowa in order to accom- plish the purpose sought by the Senator from Iowa. My amendment would re- quire disclosure of income tax returns of public officials and public employees that fall within the category stated. If we obtain that disclosure, that is all we need. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I Yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ken- tucky. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I agree that- the Senator from Oregon is the father of all resolutions requiring dis- closure. I remember that in 1947 he was advocating disclosure. Nonetheless, I shall vote against this amendment. I should like to give my reasons. I was a member of the Committee on Rules and Administration when we investigat- ed the Baker matter for months. At the end of our rather futile investigation, we took up the question of disclosure resolutions. One was voted out and is now on the calendar. Senator CLARK introduced a substitute which, in my opinion, is a more effective resolution that the one reported. I voted for the Clark resolution. Senator MANS- KELP has said that the committee reso- lution will come before the Senate. We shall have an opportunity to vote on it, the Clark resolution, the Case resolution, the Morse resolution, and others. There can be a thorough discussion. The reason I shall vote against the pending amendment is, with all due deference to my colleague, whom I ad- mire for his leadership in the disclosure field, is first, that it has no chance of acceptance by the House. We are trying to tell the House of Representatives what its rules should be. We know the conferees are not going to accept this. The resolution applies to every employee of the United States making over $10,000 annually. I think we should consider whether we want to make every such employee in the United States subject to this drastic procedure. Let us clean our own house and pro- vide a rule of disclosure for the Senate. I will vote for it. My disclosure would be about like Senator HICKEIVLOOPER'S. Let us act here, and do something that would apply to the Senate first, instead of trying to apply a rule to all empolyees in the United States. By voting, a Senator can say that he is in favor of disclosure. I will vote for a disclosure resolution when I have a chance to vote for one that would be meaningful. Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield to me 1 minute? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Nevada. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada Is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. CANNON. I concur in what the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] has said. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration has reported a resolution to the Senate, and the resolution will be considered. In Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 15290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE general, with a few exceptions, I support the terms of the amendment. I have drafted and propose to introduce at a later date a bill directed toward the very end sought, with some minor changes, In the amendment proposed by the Sena- tor from Oregon. But there will be an opportunity to consider the resolution covering the Senate itself. If we were to enact an amendment of the type pro- posed, we would really sound the death knell for the pay bill at this particular time for many who are entitled to pay consideration. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President-- The PRESIDING OloriCER. The Senator from Iowa is recognised. Mr. MILLER. I do not wish to pro- long the discussion. I merely wish to re- peat that if we really wish to do a job in this connection, the Morse amendment would not do it. It would not go far enough. We know It does not go far enough, and the people will know that, it does not go far enough. Other cate- gories of individuals who have close per- sonal relationship with the Member of Congress, the officer, or the employee, must be covered. Make no mistake about it. We shall not raise the prestige of our body in the eyes of the American peo- ple by limiting the coverage as the Morse amendment would do. The Senator from Oregon has said that it is not necessary. We know It is necessary. There are ample instances In which people have covered up some of their financial transactions by using their spouses, their children, their par- ents, their brothers or sisters, or have entered into some fiduciary arrangement. All my amendment would do is to make sure that we do an adequate job of cover- age. If the Senate does not think that this is the time to deal with such a prob- lem as this?and personally, I do not be- lieve it is?Senators may vote against the Morse amendment, as amended by the pending amendment. But if Sena- tors think they are going to fool the American people by voting the amend- ment down, and then voting for the Morse amendment, I believe it will be a very unfortunate and unhappy experi- ence. Mr. MANSIerea,D. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield to me 1 minute? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to the majority leader. The PRESIDING OteroiCER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. MANSIseKLD. To the best of my knowledge. no Member of this body Is trying to fool the American people_ I be- lieve that we are sent here to exercise our judgment in the best way we know how. If anyone has the idea that because we vote for or against a certain amendment or an amendment to an amendment that we are trying to fool the American peo- ple, I wish he would disabuse his mind of the idea, because that is a mark against the Senate as an institution and against Senators individually. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 2 minutes to me? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. MONRONEY. I appreciate what the majority leader and the minority leader have said. The bill deals with the pay scales of approximately 1,732,000 Government employees. It has been be- fore the Congress last year and this year. It is up today for final passage. I believe that we should have disclo- sure. The work that has been done in the investigating committees by the Sen- ate Committee on Rules and Administra- tion and by others will produce and give us a genuine and proper disclosure bill when the time comes, and we shall have an opportunity to take up the question as we should in a full day, 2 days, or 3 days, if necessary, in an attempt to find proper means and methods to have a very tight disclosure system for the Senate, for the House, or for both. But I am now telling the Senate that, knowing the House conferees as we do. If the amendment is put in the bill as a Senate amendment which would include the House, we shall have very great trou- ble saving the bill, because the historic comity between the Houses of Congress permits each House to be the judge of its own rules. The proposal in effect would be a rule that the Senate would like to vote upon itself for disclosure of whatever income we may have. I think most of us are for it. I certainly am. I am only ashamed that it cannot be enough to seem important, But the House would resent it and probably break up the con- ference if we included it in a rule that we properly believe should be a part of the operations of the Senate. We are two individually distinct and independ- ent bodies. Throughout history one body has not tried to impose its opinions or morals on the other body. We have got into some very important fights, as Senators well know, over such subjects as the use of the frank. Each body claimed it had the right to determine the question for itself. It is for that reason, at this late hour, with 15 minutes on a side, that I say it Is a poor time to rush into proposed leg- islation of so great importance. U the subject is brought up in the right way as a bill, doing that one thing, it would undoubtedly receive the unanimous or nearly unanimous support of the Senate. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I should like to have 10 minutes. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Illinois. The PRESIDING OrseeCER, The Senator from South Carolina has 8 min- utes remaining. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes under the bill The PRESIDING OleteiCER, The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. DIRKSEN. It seems to me that we are living in an age of snoopers. We are now proposing to enlarge the field in this very body. I think it is time to come to grips with the problem and to assert our rights, because the fact that one is in public service certainly does not divest him of his rights as a citizen of the July 2 United States. If it is desired to tack up every income tax blank on every courthouse door in the country and put us all on a par, that is a different thing. But it is proposed to require every Mem- ber of this body file three reports a year. First, a report with respect to such things as resources and income woeld be filed with the Comptroller. Section 2 would require the filing, semiannually with the Comptroller, of a report con- taining a full and complete statement of all dealings in securities. If a Senator should buy one share of stock, he must make a return to the Comptroller of the United States. If he buys another share in the next 6 months, he must make another report. The amendment would make book- keepers out of Senators, and they would have scant time left to pursue their duties as Members of the U.S. Senate. My distinguished friend the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] began by say- ing that he was somehow impressed with the fact that the Members of this body were honorable. I agree with him. But the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Cass] rose to mention the fact that although we were honorable Members, we had to be policed. Mr. President, I do not go in for such policing operations. If I cannot go back and justify my conduct with the people back home, where candidates for office are screened, I have no business being here in the first place. We would cover a large segment of the Government_ in- cluding every Representative, every Sen- ator, and every employee in this entire governmental establishment who re- ceives $10,000 or more. Everyone over the rating of GS-15 would be within the reporting requirement. Every Army of- ficer over the grade of colonel would be included, as well as all the generals. That is what the Morse amendment would do. The Senator from Oregon shakes his head affirmatively. Finally members of the national com- mittees would be included. How they got in I do not know. They are not of- ficials of the Government. The proposal has about it the old pro- hibition aura. How did it start? There is a large building over here that attests what finally happened. There a ere those who said, in the language of the Book: Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler. We heard, "Alcohol is a curse. It must be stopped. I am pure, holy, and unde- filed. No alcohol has ever seeped through my lips. But that is not enough. Somehow, I have to save others end make sure they are holy, purified, and righteous, too." Everybody becomes a crusader. That crusade mounted to proportions that finally put the 18th amendment into the Constitution of the United States. I is the one amendment that was con- trary to the spirit of that document. What does the Bill of Rights provide? It provides that Congress shall make no laws abridging freedoms, and so forth. But when we got to the 18th amendment, we said, not that the Congress shall not, but that the people shall not. They shall not manufacture. They shall not trars- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15291 port. They shall not import. They shall not drink. We added the implementa- tion of the Volstead Act. Then the snoopers went over the country. What an amazing thing. My friend from Iowa spoke a moment ago about the image of the Senate. I remember a very distinguished rabbi, whose name was Joshua Liebman. I re- member when he offered the invocation in the House of Representatives. He wrote a book called "Peace of Mind." Walking down LaSalle Street in Chicago one time, I saw the book in the window, and I picked up a copy. In the first chapter there was the challenging state- ment that "You cannot reconstruct so- ciety on the basis of unreconstructed in- dividuals." The image of the U.S. Senate will take care of itself. Just be sure that our own images are correct and that they are not under compulsion. What is an image worth if it is under compulsion of a law? No; the Senate image will be all right if we guard our individual con- duct. To pass something such as is here proposed is somewhat of a confession that there must be some dishonor here, although we start by saying that every Member of this body is honorable. For the life of me, I cannot under- stand the logic that goes with it. I am not going to vote to police another Mem- ber of this body. Every Senator is free to make a statement of his assets, liabili- ties, and income, and put it into the CON- GRESSIONAL RECORD. He can see that his income tax return is published in the RECORD, if he wants to do it. But why should one have to do it? Why does an- other person become my moral mentor because I refuse to do it under that kind of compulsion? Congress does not give the Internal Revenue Service the right to Publicize the return of anyone. Any in- dividual Member of Congress can pub- licize it, himself, and put it in the RECORD. But that is not enough for some. They say, "I am righteous, I am holy, I am undefiled, I am pure in spirit, I am honorable. But I must make my neigh- bor in the same image, and I must com- pel him to come up to the line." Look out, for when we start moving that way, we are going in a dangerous direction. Mr. President, there has been much snoopery in this country. God willing, it will never happen again. Why do we point the finger of scorn at countries behind the Iron Curtain? Because the people in those countries are afraid of the knock on the door at mid- night. Because they are afraid of wire- tapping. Because they are afraid of snooping. Because they are afraid of talking. Committee after committee of Con- gress has undertaken to run down espio- nage and spying in our own country. It is proposed now to get into the swim and spirit of that, and to say, "We have to put a mantle upon our fellow Members," as if it were not enough to have individual Members do it. Let any man stand in his place; if he wants to dolt, he is free to do it. There is nothing in the law to inhibit him. It is like the pay bill. I do not know of anything to inhibit a Senator from in- troducing a bill to give back a pay in- crease. All he has to do is authorize the Treasury to take it. Until it is done, It cannot go back to the Treasury. The Treasury does not have authority to take any money except what goes anony- mously into the conscience fund. This is the worst thing the Senate could do, and it would be a tortuous path from here on out. It certainly will not be consummated by my vote. The Miller amendment, the Morse amendment, the Keating amend- ment, the Clark amendment?all of them should be voted down by an overwhelm- ing vote. Let us show the country that, in our own image, we will do the honor- able thing. Then, if the image of this institution must be retrieved, it will be done, and not before. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield myself 1 addi- tional minute. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator take 2 minutes on the bill? The PRESIDING OFFICER. From whose side is the time to be taken? Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield myself 1 more minute. Mr. President, I end where I started, with the statement by that eloquent rabbi who died at the age of 84, when he said, "You do not reconstruct a society on the basis of unreconstructed individuals." That is where we start, and I am not worrying about the image of the Senate. Let each Member worry for himself, and not undertake to exercise the power of compulsion to have others report and re- port and report, in order to retrieve an Image, if one confesses that that image is tarnished. I make no such confession. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 more minute. ? I shall be proud to go back home and stand on any platform and let any one of the 101/2 million people, young or old, in the State of Illinois ask me, "Do you want now to tell us what you own, what your resources are?" I shall say, "I will tell you the day that every other taxpay- ing citizen in the country makes an equal disclosure. I am not a class B citizen." Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I have remaining. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 3 minutes on the bill? Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I can- not subscribe to either the Miller amend- ment or the Morse amendment. If I have to file an affidavit to prove that I am honest, then I am practically morally bankrupt. I have been in public life for 30 years. I am a lawyer. Ever since I left the bench I have not had a law office. I have nothing to hide. I have not had any $100 plate dinners for Inc. I refuse to receive contributions for my campaign from individuals who do business with government. ? I know within myself what the status of my conscience is. If this proposal is to be made, why not propose that everybody's income tax re- port should be available for examina- tion? I think this is a situation that cannot be justified. Why should I be presumed to be dishonest? Why will not my honesty be established until I file an affidavit? I wish to repeat that if I am in that condition, I should abandon public office and drop my head in shame. I have never filed an affidavit. I did make a disclosure of my assets when a newspaper columnist charged me, erroneously, about a matter. He subse- quently withdrew and retracted his charges. I cannot vote for the proposal, not be- cause I fear to disclose. I think I could disclose with much greater ease and propriety than many of those who are supporting the proposaL In my whole lifetime, except for that one attack made here in Washington 4 years ago, my integrity has never been challenged. My life is my affidavit. My life is my proof. The people know it. After 30 years of service, in 1962 the people of Ohio elected me by 700,000 votes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. LAUSCHE. That was the highest majority ever given a candidate. I did not have to file any affidavit to prove my honesty. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I oppose the Morse amendment and all similar amendments. They are not in the pub- lic interest. As to Senators, I doubt if there is any State in the Union in which voters cannot ascertain for themselves who is enqaged in the production of a supported crap, who is engaged in man- ufacturing, who has interests in bank- ing, and so on. The amendment affects a great many other people. It affects every member of the armed forces of the rank of colonel and above. It affects the fine men and women in Senators' offices, if they re- ceive more than $10,000 a year. What does it require them to do? It requires them to file a report twice a year. What must they show? They must show how much money they owe. That is what we would do to the people who work for us. The amendment in- cludes even the mothers of our armed services people who are fighting in Viet- nam. They would become criminals if they did not file a report twich a year, showing whether or not someone gave them as much as $100, or the amount of each liability owed by them. How ridiculous can we become? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. CURTIS. Whom does it cover? It covers the Armed Forces, and it covers the people who work in our offices. Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I have had something to do with certain inves- tigations. It is my honest belief that the amendment would not do one thing to stop corruption. A small minority, Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE whether elected or appointed to office, are corrupt, follow secret and devious means, and make false reports, conceal- ing their assets. They use a third per- son to hold their assets. The amendment will not end or deter corruption. The amendment would be a blow at the good people who work for the Gov- ernment. It is harassment of the honest and conscientious. It is unfair and un- just. Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Utah, Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it seems to me that this amendment pro- poses an ex post facto law. The Con- stitution of the United States sets forth the conditions under which a man may be elected to the Senate. He must be 30 years of age, and on the day of his election he must reside in the State. The persons who have run for election to the Senate under those conditions were not required to make the kind of dis- closure that the amendment would re- quire. If the supporters of the disclo- sure idea would like to offer a constitu- tional amendment, setting forth the type of disclosure Senators must make If they are elected to the Senate, let the Senate, the House, and the States of the Union decide whether such disclosure is neces- sary. Then I believe we would be ap- proaching the problem properly. People who take jobs in the executive department know in advance whether they will be required either to disclose or divest, and that fact may influence their decision to take the job. My friend, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Moan], is a great constitutional lawyer. I am surprised that he has not realized that the constitutional amend- ment processes are really the only sound basis on which to approach this kind of problem. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BENNKIT. I yield. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Sena- tor from Utah could not be more wrong as a matter of constitutional law than the fallacious argument he has just made. Mr. BENNETT. I will leave it to my colleagues in the Senate to decide that question. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining. The PRESIDING OFFICER,. The Senator from Iowa has 9 minutes re- maining. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, all that my amendment would do, so far as my friend from Illinois and my friend from Ohio are concerned, would be to put the Morse amendment into shape so that if perchance It were adopted we would not have to hang our heads and admit that we were not doing a job. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MILLER. With respect to my friend from Nebraska, all that my amendment would do would be to put into the Morse amendment the third parties to which he referred in his state- ment. Covering the mother of an officer and forgetting the third parties, so far as I am concerned, is a once-over-lightly. superficial approach. People would know it to be so. What I am trying to do with my amendment is to put the Morse amendment into shape so that 11 it should be adopted, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Ohio, who would vote against the amendment any- how, at least would realize that we had not done a superficial job. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. Mil J,ER. I yield. Mr. CURTIS. If the Senator's amend- ment Is adopted and if the amendment of the Senator from Oregon is adopted, is it not true that the brothers and sis- ters and mothers and fathers of every colonel fighting in Vietnam will have to file a report or be guilty of being a crim- inal? Mr. MILLER. If my amendment were adopted I would hope that we would have some further amendments to the Morse amendment adopted. Mr. CURTIS. I am not asking the Senator about his hopes. Is that not what would happen if the two amend- ments were adopted? Mr. MILLER. And nothing more; yes. But that does not meet the actualities of the situation. Mr. CURTIS. I should like to ask the Senator about one further situation. Suppose a lady worked In this building and her gross Income, which means be- fore expenses and before deductions for dependents, was $10,000. The adoption of the Senator's amendment would re- quire a financial statement to be filed by her showing all gifts of $100 or more, and it would require a showing on her part of all of her debts, and a similar report of her brothers and sisters and her mother and her father. Is that correct? Mr. MILLER. No; that is not correct. The Senator has not read my amend- ment. It relates only to the first sub- paragraph on page 2. What the Senator is talking about is the second and, I be- lieve, the third paragraphs on page 2. Mr. CURTIS. The Senator's amend- ment applies to everyone covered by the bill. Mr. MILLER. It relates only to the first subsection on page 2. Mr. CURTIS. That would include the people involved, Mr. MTT,T,ER It does not include debts at all. It includes income and gifts. Mr. CURTIS. The Senator would re- quire brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and everybody with a gross income of $10,000 to file the report. Is that correct? Mr. MILLER. It would require an official to file a statement. I should like to clear this up for the Senator from Nebraska by asking the clerk to read the proviso clause of my amendment, be- cause I wish him to understand that we are not being unreasonable. Will the clerk read beginning with the proviso? The legislative clerk read as follows: Provided, That if said Member, officer. or employee is unable to tile any information required hereby with respect to any of the July 2 Individuals or entities specified, other than his spouse and minor children, because of their refusal to provide such information, he shall file a statement, under oath set- ting forth the name and relationship and the fact of such refusal. Mr. MILLER. What is so unreason- able about that? Mr. CURTIS. It is very unreasonable. It does not deter dishonesty. It harasses the innocent. It does not touch the peo- ple who proceed in a devious and secret manner. That is where the corruption comes. Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Ne- braska and the Senator from Iowa us- ually see eye to eye on things of this type. A few minutes ago, he criticized the fail- ure to cover the very persons that my amendment covers, the very persona he thinks ought to be covered. Mr. CURTIS. No: the Senator places Impositions on relatives with respect to filing reports when there is no evidence whatever of dishonesty, even on the part of the principals. Mr. MILLER. I do not wish to labor the point. The Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Illinois, and other Senators know that if one wants to be devious, the Morse amendment will not handle the situation at all. If my amendment were adopted, It would be possible to touch base with those people who are in such close and intimate relationship with those indi- viduals. This is the way to catch up with the deviousness. If Senators want to take the risk of having the Morse amendment adopted, an amendment, which, as I said, is su- perficial, and is an empty gesture, they can reject my amendment. They can still vote for my amendment and then vote against the Morse amendment, as amended. Mr. President, I move the adoption of my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of his time? Mr. MILLER. I yield back the re- mainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Iowa to tne amendment of the Senator from Oregon. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OlsaUCER. The question now recurs on the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. The Sena- tor from Oregon has 4 minutes remaining. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, after listening to this interesting argument, I merely say that those who would he covered are servants of the people. The people are entitled to know the facts about the subject covered by the amendment. I am more convinced than ever that it Is In the public interest to proceed as I propose. I yield back the rest of my time. The PRESIDING 0.EVICER. All time has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 1964 ApOroved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15293 The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Mc- CARTnY] is absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN- NEDY] are absent because of illness. I further announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. SmATHERS] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are necessarily absent. On this vote, the Senator from Flor- ida [Mr. SMATHERS] is paired with the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH]. If present and voting, the Senator from Florida would vote "nay" and the Sen- ator from Texas would vote "yea." Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Forro], and the Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are neces- sarily absent. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] would vote "nay." The result was announced?yeas 25, nays 66, as follows: [No. 462 Leg.] Case Church Clark Douglas Gore Hart Hartke Jackson Javits Aiken Allott Anderson Bartlett Beall Bennett Bible Boggs Brewster Burdick Byrd, Va. Byrd, W. Va. Cannon Carlson Cooper Curtis Dirksen Dodd Dominick Eastland Edmondson Ellender Bayh Cotton Engle YEAS-25 Keating Kuchel Magnuson McGee McGovern Morse Moss Nelson Neuberger NAYS-66 Ervin Fulbright Goldwater Gruening Hayden Hickenlooper Hill Holland Hruska Humphrey Inouye Johnston Jordan, N.C. Jordan, Idaho Lausche Long, Mo. Long, La. Mansfield McClellan McIntyre McNerney% Mechem Pastore Proxmire Smith Symington Thurmond Williams, N.J. Young, Ohio Metcalf Miller Monroney Morton Mundt Muskie Pearson Pell Prouty Randolph Ribicoff Robertson Russell Scott Simpson Sparkman Stennis Talmadge Tower Walters Williams, Del. Young, N. Dak. NOT VOTING-9 Fong Saltonstall Kennedy Smathers McCarthy Yarborough So Mr. MORSE'S amendment was re- jected. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1089 and ask that it be stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rim- COFF in the chair) . The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 157, in the table following line 21, strike out: Class 1: Superintendent of Schools $25, 000 Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 21,000 No. 133-7 and insert in lieu thereof: Class 1: Superintendent of Schools $26, 000 Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 22,000 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Oregon is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. MORSE. This amendment seeks to increase the salary of the Superin- tendent of Schools of the District of Columbia from $25,000 to $26,000, and for the Deputy Superintendent from $21,000 to $22,000. My amendment raises the salary of these two officials to the figure contained in the House-passed bill. I have this amendment and another one immediately following, which can be disposed of quickly on the basis of the understanding I have with the chairman of the committee. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] tells me that it will go to conference, anyway. He desires the maximum flexibility in conference and he is not opposed to it, as I understand, but I do not seek to bind the committee in conference. He gives me the assurance that the committee will be in conference, and the amendment will receive very careful con- sideration of the Senate conferees; but I should like to have him make a brief statement on the floor of the Senate as to his position. Mr. JOHNSTON. This amendment will go to conference. The Senate figure is $1,000 lower than that of the House. The House gave $26,000 and the Senate gave $25,000, so that will go to confer- ence. Regarding the Deputy Superin- tendent of Education, the House figure Is $22,000 and the Senate figure is $21,000, so that item will also go to con- ference. I appreciate the Senator's taking this matter up at this time, to let us decide that Matter in conference. Mr. MORSE. On the basis of my con- versation with the Senator from South Carolina, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Oregon is withdrawn. Mr. MORSE. I ask unanimous con- sent to insert in the RECORD a table showing the amount and rank of salaries currently paid to superintendents of schools, 1962-63. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: AMOUNT AND RANK OP SALARIES CURRENTLY PAID TO SUPERINTENDENTS OP SCHOOLS, 1962-83 Cities over 500,000 in population 1. Chicago $48, 500 2. New York 37,500 3. Los Angeles 35, 000 4. Detroit 33, 000 5. Dallas 33, 000 6. San Francisco 31, 000 7. Pittsburgh 30, 000 8. San Diego 29, 400 9. Philadelphia 27, 500 10. Houston 27, 500 Cities over 500,000 in population?Continued 11. Milwaukee $27, 000 12. Baltimore 25, 000 13. St. Louis 25,000 14. Boston 25,000 15. San Antonio 25, 000 16. Seattle 24, 000 17. Buffalo 24,000 18. Cincinnati 24, 000 19, Cleveland 23, 000 20. New Orleans 21, 000 21. Washington 19,000 Suburban systems 1. Montgomery County $23, 000 2. Arlington County 21, 500 3. Prince Georges County 21, 000 4. Alexandria 20, 000 5. Fairfax County 20,000 6. Washington 19, 000 7. Falls Church 12, 100 Prepared by Department of General Re- search, Budget, and Legislation, Feb. 12, 1963. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment No. 1090 and ask that it be stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INOUYE in the chair) . The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 118, after line 25, insert the following? Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 118, after line 25, insert the fol- lowing: "(26) Chairman, National Mediation Board. "(27) Chairman, Railroad Retirement Board." On page 119, renumber items (26) ;to (33) as (28) to (35), respectively. On page 119, between lines 12 and 13, in- sert the following: "(36) Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service." On page 119, renumber items (34) to (40) as (37) to (43), respectively. On page 121, strike out linea 12 and 13. On page 121, renumber items (27) to (32) as (25) to (30), respectively. On page 122, strike out lines 1 and 2. On pages 122, 123, and 124 renumber items (34) to (68), inclusive, as items (31) to (65), respectively. On page 124, between lines 11 and 12, in- sert the following: "(66) Members, National Mediation Board. "(67) Members, Railroad Retirement Board." On page 124, renumber items (69) to (71) as (68) to (70), respectively. On page 132, strike out lines 6 and 7. On page 132, renumber items (93) to (97) as (91) to (95), respectively. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this amendment proposes to eliminate the unwarranted distinctions in grade level drawn by the bill between the agencies of the Federal Government immediately concerned with the administration of the national labor policy. These agencies have historically and traditionally been equal rank with equal compensation and under my amendment this parity of treatment would be maintained. Section 303(c) (25) of the bill recog- nizes that the Chairman of -the National Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2 Labor Relations Board performs a func- tion equal in significance to that per- formed by the chairmen of other com- missions, such as the Civil Aeronautics Board, Federal Communications Com- mission, Federal Power Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Security and Exchange Commission. The chair- men of these agencies are placed on a parity with the Deputy Attorney General and the Solicitor General of the United States and with the various Under Sec- retaries of the Departments. This is as it should be. These key officials in the executive branch of the Federal Government have been placed in level III of the Federal executive salary schedule and, if this bill is enacted, will receive basic com- pensation at $28,500 per year. However, section 303(d) (25) of the bill, for some purpose which is not al- together clear to me, downgrades the Chairman of the National Mediation Board to the next lower level of the Fed- eral executive salary schedule, carrying an annual rate of basic compensation at $27,000 per year, or $1,500 less than his counterpart on the National Labor Rela- tions Board. Section 303(d) (26) of the bill provides for the similar downgrading of the Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board. I now turn to section 303(d) (33) of the bill and find that the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has been given the same treat- ment. He, too, is considered to be some- what inferior to the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and has been relegated to level 4 in the pay scale. I have no quarrel with the judgment of the committee in identifying the Na- tional Labor Relations Board as a grade A agency and rewarding its Chairman with the level 3 scale of compensation. Throughout most of my professional life, I have been intimately acquainted with the nature of the work of this Board, and I think that it is fair to say that I understand its function as well as any other Member of Congress. In my Judg- ment, the Labor Board plays a most significant role in the administration of the national labor policy and through- out the greater part of its 28-year history has played this role well. I may say that during the course of the past 3 or 4 years, it has played this role substan- tially better than in the period immedi- ately preceding that point of time. In- deed, many of us are well acquainted with Chairman of the Labor Board, Frank McCullough, from his years of de- voted and outstanding work in the Sen- ate, and I can say without reservations that Chairman McCullough's outstand- ing service on the Board entitles hen to every cent of the compensation proposed by this bill. However, it is not my inten- tion to personalize this aspect of the pay bill, nor should it be. Our concern is with the function and not with the in- cumbent performing that function. But the Chairman of the National La- bor Relations Board plays only one of a number of the roles performed by the executive branch in the administration of the national labor policy. Of no less importance is the role played by the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Indeed, in one sense, the Director of the Mediation Service is positioned in the very center of the system through which the national labor policy is ad- ministered. I need not remind you that this policy for the past quarter century has been the encouragement, promotion, and preservation of a system of free and voluntary collective bargaining. We rec- ognized long ago that free collective bar- gaining was an indispensable element of an economic democracy. Reaffirmation and rededication to this policy becomes Increasingly important in this period of our history, faced as we are by unparal- leled tensions in the world about us. Free collective bargaining means, of course, the development of policies and procedures to insure that labor and man- agement remain free to arrive at volun- tary solutions of their problems. The development and Improvement of meth- ods to enable the parties to work out their differences and to arrive at volun- tary agreements which are compatible with the interests of the community as it whole without work stoppages is a nec- essary corollary to the basic national policy of promoting and encouraging free and voluntary collective bargaining. It is at this central point in the ad- ministration of the national labor policy that the Mediation Service plays Its role. It operates as the yeast, the catalyst, the peacemaker, the directional finder, the midwife?call It what you will?in as- sisting the parties in defining the precise points of their differences and in iden- tifying the common ground upon which reconciliation may be found. This is the process by which the parties are aided and encouraged to rely upon reasoning and persuasion in arriving at good faith resolutions of their disputes and, at times, in dissipating the fog of suspicion that may otherwise obscure the field markers outlining the area upon which agreement may be found. Of course, in the nature of things, the work of the Mediation Service must pro- ceed quietly, anonymously, and without publicity. But its contribution in the 17 years of its existence to the develop- ment of rational and effective labor- management relations policies, in pro- motinq and preserving free collective bargaining and in maintaining industrial peace has been invaluable. Let us examine its record. It receives 100.000 notices under section (8) (d) of the National Labor Relations Act each year covering all cases within the scope of the act in which it is proposed to modify collective bargaining agreements on contract termination or otherwise. Twenty thousand of these cases are assigned to Federal mediators. In 7,000 cases the mediator moves di- rectly into the dispute. The period of joint meetings may range from a single meeting to as many as 80 or more in the complex and difficult cases. On the aver- age, four meetings are required in each case. The principal objective of the Media- tion Service is to provide useful and meaningful service to the parties in as- sisting them to arrive at voluntary solu- tions to the disputes without work stop- pages. Thus, the maintenance of indus- trial peace is in a very real sense, the measure of the success of the Service. If we look at the record, we will find that during the past 4 or 5 years strikes ha-7e been at an alltime low, ranging from fourteen one-hundredths of 1 percent to seventeen one-hundredths of 1 percent if man-hours lost compared to total man- hours work. Most of us will agree, I am sure, that we do not want the Federal Government or the State government meddling or in- tervening into labor relations. We know that compulsory arbitration means the ends of free collective bargaining. We also know that the various forms of gov- ernmental regulations of labor relations short of arbitration inhibit and event- ually undermine the freedom of choice in this area which is so essential to the preservation of our system of govern- ment. The key factor in the prevention of in- roads and invasions by the Government Into this precious institution of free col- lective bra-El-tin-1.1g is the mediation func- tion. The Federal Mediation and Con- ciliation Sen ice performs this functicn extraordinarily well and I challenge any- one to deny that its contribution to the maintenance of the national labor policy is one iota less important than that of the National Labor Relations Board. If the Chai.inian of the National Labor Relations Board belongs in level III of the Federal executive salary schedule, so does the Direci.tir of the Federal Media,- tion and Conciliation Service. I should emphasize at this point in my remarks that these officers are now rated on the same scale of magnitude. When the Federal Mediation and Con- ciliation Service was created as a result of the incorpiration of my bill into the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 the compensa - tion of the Director was fixed at precisely the same level as the compensation of the Chairman of the National Labor Rela- tions Board. Some yeani later on July 31, 19513, When these salaries were adjusted the two offices continued to be recognized as having equal magnitude. The Direc- tor's salary, like the Chairman's salary, was raised to 820,500. And so it is today. These men are treated in the same way under the Classification Act. There is not the slightest justification for making a distinction between the im- portance of these jobs at this time. Indeed, if anything, it is more im- portant than ever to underscore the es- sential nature of the work of the Medi- ation Service The administration has recognized this and has made efforts to raise the professional status of the Fed- eral Mediation staff in order to permit It to function more effectively. This pol- icy of the administration was cited witii approval by the President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Pol- icy in its report of a few years ago. My amendment would maintain the equal status which has traditionally and Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9 _Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE historically been accorded to these two offices. Each should be established with- in level III of the salary schedule as my amendment proposes. A third element in the execution of the national labor policy is the National Mediation Board which performs for the railroad and airline industries precisely the same function that the Federal Medi- ation and Conciliation Service performs for the rest of the economy. In examining the pay bill, I find that the chairman of the National Mediation Board has been downgraded in the same manner as has the Director of the Fed- eral Mediation Service. The remarks which I have made thus far, apply with equal force to the National Mediation Board. The National Mediation Board has the responsibility for the administration of the Railway Labor Act. This Board over a period of some, almost 30 years has maintained a unique record for the pres- ervatio nof the stability of labor man- agement relations in this field. In addi- tion the National Mediation Board has the responsibility, under the state stat- ute, for labor management relations among carriers by air and their em- ployees. In this relatively new field of burgeon- ing employment, now exceeding 500,000 employees, the Board's record over the past 25 years has been equally success- ful. The maintenance of the flow of commerce along these vital arteries re- quires the highest degree of responsibil- ity and application by the members of this Board. In addition its agents and employees are in constant touch with the leaders of labor and management in these fields on almost a daily basis to prevent a disruption in the flow of inter- state commerce. The National Medi- ation Board has the additional responsi- bility of administering the affairs and budget of the National Railroad Adjust- ment Board in Chicago. This latter agency faces the task of adjusting thou- sands of minor disputes during the course of each year. In all, the stability of the employment relationship of over a mil- lion and a quarter wage earners in the United States are affected by the opera- tions of the National Mediation Board. Thus, my amendment proposes to re- store the balance between these various functions which has been recognized for so long and which reflects the actual facts. The Chairman of the National Mediation Board, like the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and the Director of the Federal Mediation Service should be placed in level 3. Next, we come to the Railroad Retire- ment Board.' Here again, for some rea- son, the committee has downgraded the chairman of this Board to the level 4 category. He, too, has historically and traditionally been recognized as per- forming a function, equal in status and, worth to that of the other officials whom I have described above. The railroad retirement system pro- vides important protection to railroad employees, their dependents and sur- vivors. The railroad unemployment in- surance system provides nationwide un- employment and sickness protection for railroad employees. The Railroad Retirement Board em- ploys about 2,000 employees. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, the Rail- road Retirement Board paid more than $1,200 million in benefits to 1,200,000 beneficiaries under the two systems. The total amount paid out by the Board through fiscal 1963 is about $14 billion. The Railroad Retirement Board has an excellent record of performance in the administration of the two systems, and I feel very strongly that, considering the importance, responsibility and size of the systems the Board administers, the downgrading of this agency which the bill proposes is clearly unwarranted. The Congress has always regarded the railroad retirement and railroad unem- ployment insurance systems, and their administration, as of particular and pri- mary concern to the employees and em- ployers in the railroad industry and has always attached great weight to any rec- ommendation upon which representa- tives of the employers and employees have been in agreement. I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point of my remarks a joint letter signed by Earl Leighty, chairman of the Railway Labor Executives' Association and Gregory S. Prince, executive vice president and gen- eral counsel of the Association of Amer- ican Railroads addressed to the Honor- able Tom Murray, chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, describing the work of both the Railroad Retirement Board and the Na- tional Mediation Board and urging that these agencies be maintained at their present levels of parity with the National Labor Relations Board in the Federal pay system. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WASHINGTON, D.C., March 18, 1964. Hon. Tom MURRAY, Chairman, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We, the Association of American Railroads and the Railway La- bor Executives' Association, are vitally in- terested in the administration of all statutes affecting our operations including our labor relations handled by the National Mediation Board and the railroad retirement system and the railroad unemployment insurance system handled by the Railroad Retirement Board. These latter two systems are financed by payroll taxes on the railroad industry and the costs of administration including salaries, are also paid from these payroll taxes. Both of these latter systems are ad- ministered by the Railroad Retirement Board, a tripartite agency, one member of which is selected upon the recommendation of the railroads, one upon the recommendation of labor organizations representing railroad em- ployees and the chairman without recom- mendation by either group. The National Mediation Board, by statute, is a bipartisan board, not more than two of the three mem- bers shall be of the same political party. We are concerned about the salary levels provided for the three members of the Rail- road Retirement Board and the threelnem- bers of the National Mediation Board, in H.R. 10444 and related bills which were filed on March 16, 1964. Section 302 of title III of these bills establishes a "Federal executive 15295 salary schedule" to be divided into six salary levels. Level In of this schedule, which is contained in section 303(c), includes the chairmen of a number of Federal agencies to which the Railroad Retirement Board and the National Mediation Board compare very favorably, either in importance, size, or re- sponsibility, but the Chairmen of the Rail- road Retirement Board and the National Mediation Board are not included. Further, while the language with respect to positions in level IV "such other offices and positions the duties and responsibilities of which [the President] deems appropriate for this level" would warrant placing the members of the Railroad Retirement Board and the National Mediation Board in this level, there is similar language with respect to positions in levels V and VI. In view of this we respectfully recommend amendments to these bills which *ould specifically include the Chairmen of the Railroad Retirement Board and the Na- tional Mediation Board in level III and the other members of the Board in level IV. The railroad retirement system which the Board administers is the nationwide retire- ment system for employees in the railroad industry. It provides important protection to railroad employees and their dependents and survivors. Employees receive annuities upon their retirement for age or disability. Annuities are paid to their spouses and other dependents and annuities or lump sums are paid to the survivors of railroad employees. The railroad unemployment insurance sys- tem which the Board administers provides nationwide unemployment insurance protec- tion for railroad employees in the form of un- employment, sickness, and maternity bene- fits. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, the Railroad Retirement Board paid more than $1,200 million in benefits to 1,200,000 beneficiaries under the two systems. The total amount paid out by the Board through fiscal 1963 is about $14 billion. The Board employs about 2,000 employees. Among the Government agencies included in section 303(c) of the bill is one with about the same number of employees and 11 with considerably less than this number. In at least 10 of the agencies included in section 303(c), the present salaries of the chairmen and other members of the agencies are $20- 500 and $20,000, respectively, the same as of the chairman and members of the Railroad Retirement Board. The Railroad Retirement Board has an ex- cellent record of performance in the admin- istration of the two systems, and we feel very strongly that, considering the importance, responsibility, and size of the systems the Board administers, the failure to include spe- cifically the chairman of the Railroad Re- tirement Board in section 303(c) is unwar- ranted. The same is true of the failure clearly to include the members of the Rail- road Retirement Board in level IV. The Congress has always regarded the rail- road retirement and railroad unemployment insurance systems, and their administration, as of particular and primary concern to the employers and employees in the railroad in- dustry and has always attached great weight to any recommendation upon which repre- sentatives of the employers and employees have been in agreement. We have an espe- cially notable record of having been in agree- ment virtually at all times for more than 25 years on matters pertaining to the ad- ministration of the two systems. The National Mediation Board has the re- sponsibility for the administration of the Railway Labor Act. This Board, over a pe- riod of some almost 30 years, has maintained a unique record for the preservation of the stability of labor management relations in this field. In addition, the National Media- tion Board has the responsibility, under the same statute, for labor management rela- tions among carriers by air and their em- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 15296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ployees. In this relatively new field of bur- geoning employment, now exceeding 500.000 employees, the Board's record over the past 25 years has been equally successful. The maintenance of the flow of commerce along these vital arteries requires the highest degree of responsibility and application by the members of this Board. In addition its agents and employees are In constant touch with the leaders of labor and management In these fields on almost a daily basin to prevent a disruption in the flow of interstate com- merce. The National Mediation Board has the additional responsibility of administer- ing the affairs and budget of the National Railroad Adjustment Board in Chicago. This latter agency faces the task of adjusting thousands of minor disputes during the course of each year. In all, the stability of the employment relationship of over a mil- lion and a quarter wage earners in the United States are affected by the operations of the National Mediation Board. As representatives of those who, in effect. pay the salaries of the three members of the Railroad Retirement Board and who are vitally concerned with the ability of the Na- tional Mediation Board to effectively admin- ister its program, we respectfully request that section 303 of the bill BR. 10444 be amended by inserting in subsection (c) after line 13 on page 42 the following: "(45) Chairman of the Railroad Retire- ment Board. "(46) Chairman of the National Mediation Board."; and by inserting in subsection (e) In line 2 on page 43 after the word "poet- tions" the following: "(including, but not limited to, members of the Railroad Retirement Board and mem- bers of the National Mediation Board)" We shaU appreciate it if you will see that our proposed amendments and the reasons therefor are made available to and given consideration by the committee. Sincerely yours, By GREGORY S. PRINCE. Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Association of American Railroads. By G. E. Larceny, Chairman, Railway Labor Executives' Association. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, my amendment would remove this threat- ened inequality and would restore the Railroad Retirement Board to the high level in Government in which it belongs. Finally, I must point out that the re- ported bill discriminates against the members of the National Mediation Board and the Railroad Retirement Board in the same way in which it dis- criminates against their chairmen. In each case, the members have been down- graded to level 5 of the Federal execu- tive salary schedule whereas the mem- bers of the National Labor Relations Board have been placed in level 4. This is precisely the same kind of down- grading which the bill imposes on the chairmen of these agencies and consti- tutes, in my judgment, rank discrimina- tion against the members of these im- portant agencies. My amendment pro- poses to repair this injustice. In closing my remarks, I should like to point out that the House bill, recogniz- ing the realities of the role of these va- rious agencies in the Federal Govern- ment, accorded to each of them the same rank and dignity which they have always enjoyed. There is not a shred of evidence to justify that these agencies are no longer entitled to the class A status which they have so long merited. Each continues to perform in its own way the same sig- nificant and effective role in the admin- istration of the national labor Polley. The House bill, in recognition of these facts, continue to classify the agencies in the same way. The chairman of the Senate committee has assured me that this amendment will go to conference and will receive the very careful consideration of the Senate conferees. I understand that the chairman himself is not opposed to it, but I should like to have it go to con- ference without any binding commit- ment upon the Senate conferees. My respect for and confidence in the conferees of the Senate is such that I am perfectly willing to enter into that un- derstanding. if it can be implemented? and I ani sure it can be?under the able leadership of the Senator from South Carolina. though I should like to have him make a brief statement of his posi- tion. Mr. JOHNSTON. What the Senator has said is absolutely true. We have discussed this subject, and the amend- ment will go to conference. These amounts were left to the President, it will be recalled by members of the committee, to put them In whatever class the Pres- ident desired to put them into. That being si. it will be a matter for the conferees, Mr. MORSE. With that understand- ing, I ask unanimous consent to with- draw my amendment. The PRESIDING OFeaCER. The amendment of the Senator from Oregon Is withdrawn. Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. PF.T.T, Mr. President, we have be- fore us a vitally important bill, HR. 11049, the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1964. It is important that those who work for the Federal Government receive compensation nearly the approximate equivalent of that received by their coun- terparts in responsibility in the business world. Recently, a number of top Govern- ment officials regretably, have had to leave their jobs because their salaries were not adequate to meet their personal needs. The loss of outstanding men and women and the inability to attract top- flight talent leave our Government in a serious predicament. The ability to run a government efficiently and well depends In large part on the caliber of those who fill responsible positions_ When we fail to retain or to bring such persons into the Federal service, all of us suffer the consequences?and particularly the tax- payers, who have every right to demand that their tax dollars be used in the most effective and efficient manner passible. Some have criticized Congress for raising the salaries of its Members. This I consider unjustified and unwarranted by the facts. While I personally am fortunate enough not to need this raise, the fact remains that a very large per- centage of Senators and Congressmen have as their sole source of income, their salaries. They are faced with high, but Inescapable, expenses, of which the pub- lic is often unaware?the need to main- July 2 tam n a residence in Washington and in the home State, travel and entertain- ment expenses, and certain office costs that exceed the allotments granted Members. To demand of Members of Congress?and rightfully so--the VerY highest standards, but then to deny them an adequate salary, strikes me as some- what hypocritical. The arguments I have advanced apply equally across the board, whether in reference to a postal clerk or a judge on the Supreme Court. Good men deserve good treatment, and one of the ir..di- cators is an adequate salary. I am particularly pleased that the Senate committee revised the scale of wages for those in the middle grades of the classified service. This is ex- tremely important, for it is in these grades that we bring in the bright young men and young women who eventuelly will occupy the top positions in Govern- ment. We cannot attract them if we are not walling to pay them adequate salaries. For instance, in my own State of Rhode Island, nearly 12,500 civilians are working for the Federal Government. They are productive, and do an excellent job. But, like everyone else, they are affected by rises in the cost of living, educational expenses, and the many other responsibilities that confront the average American family. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1093 and ask that it be stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Louisi- ana will be Etated for the information of the Senate. The legislative clerk read as follows: On page 100, beginning with the word "In" in line 4, strike out through line 14 and Insert in lieu thereof the following: "at the rats of 6 per centum of his gross compen- sation (basic compensation plus additional compensation authorized by law)." On page 109, beginning with the word "an" In line 20. strike out through line 23 and insert in Lieu thereof the following: "6 per centum." On page 112, beginning with the word "an" in line 17, strike out through Une 23 a:ad insert in lieu thereof the following: "6 per centum." On page 113, line 4, strike out "622,945" and insert in lieu thereof "620,000". On page 114, line 3, strike out "626,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$22,500". On page 114, line 6, strike out "624.500" and insert in lieu thereof "620,500". On page 114, line 8, strike out "822.500" and insert in Lieu thereof "$20,500". On page 114, line 13, strike out "$27,50)" and insert in lieu thereof "$22,500". Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. a-TJ.ENDEFL. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to reduce the amount to be.paid to the legislative employees of the Senate as provided in the bill and have it raised to 6 percent. As the Senator from South Carolir.a stated yesterday, in 1962 we had an across-the-board raise of salaries for legislative employees of 7 percent. Here we are 2 years later, arid under the provisions of this bill, the salaries of Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 A 1964 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15297 Senate employees are? raised as much as $21,500, and he Would receive $22,500 un- 211/2 percent. . der this bill. I think it is ample. What I seek to do is to put a maximum The legislative counsel would receive of 6 percent on the salaries which, to- $22,500, an increase of 6 percent, from gether with the 7 percent that Congress $21,500. granted last year, will total a 13-percent The General Counsel of GAO now re- increase since 1962. Under the bill that ceives $20,000. My amendment would was enacted in 1962, with a base pay of provide for him $22,500. $8,880, an administrative assistant re- Now the administrative assistants of ceived $18,884. Under this bill, that same Senators would be increased from the base pay would increase to a pay of total that they can now receive of $18,- $22,945, a sum in excess of what Senators 880, to $20,000. Mr. President, I think are now receiving. And the same rate that is ample. practically goes on up to a base pay of, This 6-percent increase, together with say, $6,005, where an increase of 161/2 the 7-percent increase that we allowed percent, down to the 211/2 percent for the last year, is ample for those workers. highest pay for the administrative of- Mr. President, I wish to place in the ficer. =tEcoRD at this point two tables that in- The amendment covers the salaries of dicate how much the legislative em- the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant ployees are receiving now, and what they at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, and will receive under this bill. his administrative assistant. There being no objection, the table Under the present law, the Sergeant was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, at Arms of the Senate receives $21,500. as follows: If this bill were enacted, that same offl- U.S. Senate-Effective Oct. 15, 1962 cial would receive $27,500-an increaseBasic Gross of $500 a month, or a percentage increase per annum per annum of 27.9 percent. $60 $1, 020. 72 In addition to that, the Sergeant at $120 1, 162. 11 Arms is furnished an automobile. He is $180 1,303.50 240 1,444.89 furnished a chauffeur. He will be bet- $ 1,586.28 ter off than a Senator, if the Senator re- $300 $360 1,727.67 ceives the increased amount that is now $420 1, 869. 06 provided for in the bill. If this bill were $480 2, 010. 44 enacted by the Senate, as presented by $640 2, 151. 84 the distinguished Senator ' from South $600 2,293.23 Carolina, the Sergeant at Arms would re- $660 2,434.61 ceive $27,500-only $2,500 less than a $720 2, 576. 01 2,717.39 Senator. gg 2,855.64 : On yesterday, my good friend corn- $900 2,968.75 pared the work of the Sergeant at Arms $960 3, 081. 86 to that of the police chief of the city of $1,020 3,194.98 New York. Of course, this is not a valid 61,080 3, 308. 08 comparison. The Sergeant at Arms is a $1,140 3,421.20 nice fellow, but this job is more or less $1,200 $1,260 3, 534. 31 political. And to increase his salary 3, 638.01 overnight by $500 a month cannot be $1,320 3,711.69 $1,380 3,845.37 justified by anyone. $1,440 4, 052. 75 3, 949.07 The same thing holds true for the Sec- $1,500 - tary of the Senate, who now receives $1,660 4, 167. 47 $21,500. The increase would raise his $1,620 4.285. 68 salary to $27,500, or an increase of 27.9 $1,680 4,403.88 4 $1,740 ,525.43 percent. $1,800 4, 655. 47 We furnish the Secretary of the Sen- $1,860 4,785.46 ate with an automobile and a chauffeur. $1,920 4,915.49 I would say that the Secretary of the $1,980 5, 045. 53 Senate is getting more money than a $2,040 5, 178.54 Senator would if the bill were passed as $2,100 5, 305. 58 presently written, $2,160 $2,220 5, 435. 56 5, 565.59 The Architect of the Capitol now re- $2,280 5, 695. 63 ceives $20,700. If this bill were passed, $2,340 5, 825.84 we would grant him an increase to $2,400 5,955.67 $26,000, or an increase of 26.1 percent. $2,460 6, 085.68 Mr. President, that is unconscionable. $2,620 6,215.70$2,580 6, 345. 74 An administrative assistant would be $2,640 6,475.75 raised from $18,880 to $22,945, or a raise$ 6,605.79 of $4,065, or 21.5 percent of what he is $22:707600 6,735.82 now receiving. $2,820 6,865.81 My amendment is very simple. What $2,880 6,995.86 it would do is give an across-the-board = 7,125.87 ? 7, 265. 90 increase, the same as we did in 1962. $3,060 7, 385. 93 That year, we gave an across-the-board $3,120 7,515.94 increase of 7 percent. My amendment $3,180 7,645.97 would give an additional 6 percent. The $3,240 7,775. 96 Secretary of the Senate is now receiving $3,300 '7, 906. 00 $21,500. Under this amendment, he $3,360 8, 036,03 would be increased to $22,500, the amount $3,420 8, 166.04 that the Senators now receive. $3,480 8, 296.07 $3,540 8, 428.08 . ? The Sergeant at Arms would receive $3,600 - 8, 556 11 the same increase. He now receives $3,660 8, 686. 14 U.S. Senate-Effective Oct. 15, 1962-Con, Basic Gross per annum per annum $3,720 $8, 816. 15 $3,780 8,946. 19 $3,840 9, 076. 20 $3,900 9, 206. 22 $3,960 9, 336. 25 $4,020 9,466. 27 $4,080 9, 596. 30 $4,140 9,726. 31 $4,200 9, 856. 33 $4,260 9, 986. 36 $4,320 10, 116. 37 - $4,380 10. 246. 39 $4,140 10. 376. 42 $4,600 10, 506. 43 $4,560 10, 636. 46 $1,620 10, '764. 52 $4,680 10, 883. 64 $4,740 11, 012. 73 $1,800 11, 136. 85 $4,860 11, 260.97 $4,920 11, 386. 08 $4,980 11, 509. 18 $5,040 11, 633. 30 $5,100 11, 757. 41 $5,160 11, 881. 53 $5,220 12, 002. 36 $5,280 12, 115. 18 $5,310 12, 228.01 $5,400 12, 340. 85 $5,460 12, 453.66 $5,520 12, 566. 49 $5,580 12, 679.33 $5,640 12, 792. 16 $5,700 12, 901. 99 $5,760 13, 017. 82 $5,820 13, 130. 55 $5,1380 13, 243. 46 $5,940 13, 356. 29 $6,000 13,469. 14 $6,060 13, 581. 97 $6,120 13, 694. 79 $6,180 13, 807.62 $6,240 13, 920.44 $6,300 14, 033. 28 $6,360 14, 146. 10 $6,420 14, 239.93 $6,480 14, 371. 76 $6,540 14,484. 59 $6,600 14, 597. 42 $6,660 14,710. 25 $6,720 14, 823. 08 $6,780 14, 935. 89 $6,840 15;048. 73 $6,900 15, 181.57 $6,960 15, 274.41 $7,020 15, 387. 22 $7,080 -15,500.05 $7,140 15, 612. 88 $7,200 15, 725.71 $7,260 15, 838. 54 $7,320 15, 951. 37 $7,380 16, 064. 19 $7,440 16, 177. 01 $7,500 16, 289. 86 $7,560 16, 402.68 $7,620 16, 515.51 $7,1380 16, 628. 34 $7,740 16, 741. 16 $7,800 16, 854, 00 $7,860 16, 966.84 $7,920 17, 079. 65 $7,980 17, 192. 48 $8,000 17, 230. 10 $8,040 17, 305. 31 $8,100 17, 418. 16 $8,160 17, 683.97 $8,220 17,643. 80 $8,280 17, 756. 63 $8,340 17, 869. 44 $8,400 17,982. 29 -$8,460 18, 095. 12 88,520 18, 207. 94 $8,580 18, 320. '77 $8,640 18, 436.60 $8,700 18, 546. 43 $8,760 18, 659. 26 $8,820 18,772. 09 $8,880 18, 880.00 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15298 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE LEG/SLAT/17R SALARY INCIJSABY-S This is designed to provide percentage salary adjustments for legislative employees comparable to those provided for employees under the Classification Act.. The increases are provided In an amount equal to 3% per- cent of the employee's gross rate plus 1 per- cent of his gross rate for each whole multiple, or part of a multiple of $500 basic compen- sation; or an amount equal to 6 percent of such gross rate. whichever Is greater. 51 ultlple 0.1 Bean 85 BOO Present gross 8891 1,020 2,067 Proposed amendment Percent increuse New groes 8.0 6.0 5.0 6935 1,071 2.160 545 2,069 5. 6 2, 183 1.000 3, 157 b. 5 3,100 9 1,005 3,166 8. 5 3, 372 2.4 3 1,200 1.600 3,684 4,062 6. 5 6.5 3. 764 4, 316 3 1,605 4.001 7. 5 4,3)15 3 6 1.800 4,688 7. 5 6.004 4 ? 000 6.083 7. 3 8.470 4 2, 00.5 5, 099 8. 8.038 4.34 2. 400 6.966 8.45 6,4131 2.000 6,172 8.6 6,697 2.005 8, 183 9. 5 6,770 3.000 7. 258 IL 5 7.948 Ii 3.005 7,286 10.8 c/9 7 8,600 8,389 10.6 it 215 7 3.605 &360 11.5 9, 310 7.2 8.500 8.558 11.5 9.040 34 4, 000 9.422 11_ 5 10. 506 4. 005 O. 483 12. 5 10.013 ft 4.500 10.606 12. 5 11.1319 9 4,505 10.017 13. 5 11.031 fi 4,1300 11.1345 13.5 12.640 10 8.000 11.550 13.5 13. 109 Ill 8.00,5 11.580 14.5 13,237 11 6, 500 12, 528 14. 5 14,345 11 6, 5115 12.538 13. 5 14.431 12 6, 000 13. 469 15. 5 15.836 1,1 6.1105 13. 478 16. 5 1,5.702 13 6,5411) 14.409 1)3.5 16, 788 13 6,005 14, 418 17. 18.042 14 7, 000 1-5. 349 17. 18.038 14 7,005 15.359 131. 5 18.200 14.4 7.316) 18.723 114 16.63.5 15 7,84)0 16. 289 18. 6 16,303 1.5. 7,605 16.1299 la 5 19,477 16 8,0(6) 17. U) 19. 5 20.800 16 8.005 17.239 SILO 20, 773 '7. 8.100 18. 170 24 5 21.893 17 8.606 18, 179 21. b 22.04% 17.7 8,880 12,804 21. 22.045 Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, as I said, it ranges from 5 percent for the employee getting $891 a year-and we have got very few of those now-to those receiving a 21.5-percent increase. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. What is the present- day maximum pay allowable for admin- istrative assistants? Mr. ELLENDER. Eighteen thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars. Mr. LAUSCHE. What would the bill do as it now stands? Mr. ELLENDER. The bill as it now stands would provide $22,945. Mr. LAUSCHE. And what will the amendment of the Senator from Loui- siana provide? Mr. ELLENDER. $20,000. I say that we should use a little sanity on these wage hikes. I am very hopeful that the Senate will vote for my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Loui- siana. The yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator from Louisiana a question? The PRESIDING 01,FICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized. Mr. MANSFIELD. All the employees' salaries were not listed. Were they? Mr PI JPNDEJt.. In what? Mr. MANSFIELD In the Senate. Mr ELLENDER. It covers all of the legislative employees. Mr. MANSFIELD It covers all of the legislative employees, the Chaplain, and so forth? Mr Fr LENDER. Yes, even the little pages here. As I said yesterday, when I came to the Senate, the pages were getting $5 a day. This bill Increases it to $5,000 a year. I think this is uncon- scionable. We gave a cut this year on income taxes. And with all of that, we are pro- posing to raise these legislative em- ployees, as I said, from 5 to 21 q percent. That cannot be justified. Mr. President. The PRESIDING OloteiCalli. The Senator from South Carolina is recog- nized. Mr. JOUNSTON. Mr. President, the salaries referred to are in keeping with the salaries that have been requested by the administration for executive branch employees and approved by the House. If this amendment is agreed to, we will find that the House employees and offices will have substantial increases, and our officers and employees will not have any Increase but the 6 percent. It Is in the higher brackets that we are having trouble in securing the qualified men, both downtown and here. I do not think any Senator wishes to pay an executive branch employee more than our own employees in the Senate are paid for a position of equivalent rank and responsibility. The Senator has spoken of the Ser- geant at Arms. At the present time there Is only $1,000 difference between the salary of the Sergeant at Arms and the salary of a Senator. When the bill passes, there will be a difference of $2,500. So the proposal is in keeping with what we have done in the past. We have tried to regulate salaries so that Inconsistencies will not cause a great deal of trouble. I hope that the Senate will reject the amendment. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I have been unable to ascertain whether the Comptroller General's rate would be reduced by the amendment of the dis- tinguished Senator. I know that the Counsel would be reduced. Mr. ELLENDER. Those included are the Secretary of the Senate, the Ser- geant at Arms, the Legislative Counsel, the General Counsel of GAO, the Libra- rian of Congress, the Public Printer, the Architect of the Capitol, the Deputy Librarian, the Deputy Public Printer, and the Assistant Architect of the Capi- tol. Mr. MONRONEY. The head of the GAO would not be included in the pro- posed reductions? Mr. ELLENDER.. No. Mr. MONRONEY. He is on that list of officers generally associated together. Mr. ELLENDER. What I sought to do was to include employees in the legisla- July 2 tive branch of the Government. As the Senator knows, the bill would increase the salaries of all employees who are members of the staffs of the milliors of subcommittees and special committees that we have. Mr. MONRONEY. Not necessarily. The Senator knows that only those em- ployees whose salaries were increased by their employer would receive the in- crease. Mr. FT 7 ENDER. Certainly, but the Senator knows what would happen. Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator from Oklahoma has never used anywhere near the maximum amount of salary allow- ance. I ant sure that the Senator from Louisiana las not. Mr. FI LENDER. I have nor. Mr. MONRONEY. I am sure that the Senator fnmn South Carolina has hot. The maximum is an amount which very few employees ever attain. If a Senator chooses to use his pay allowance in order to keep his administrative assistant at $22,945, which is the tiptop of the grade of those fine young people who serve and make a lifetime job of their service, then he has a right to do so. As early as 1946 the top staff men of the Senate commit- tees were so classified that they would be able to attract the same quality of men. We would prevent raids upon our staffs of our good men. Otherwise they would be 'attracted downtown at higher em- ployment wages. If we are going to pay more to those in the top level of civil service-those in grade 18 in the executive department downtown, who have less hard work to do than our own staff people-we should at least raise the salaries of our cwn staff people to $22.945 as well. The ratio has been well kept. We have tried to maintain the differences. There has been a difference of $1,000 between the salary of a Senator and the salary of the Sergeant at Arms and that of he Secretary of the Senate. Under the sill the difference would be $2,500. As to the Architect of the Capitol, neither of us might agree that he is an excellent architect, but the job-and that is what we are trying to classify- is a job that certainly demands a person of capability. It demands someone a ho would have that much earning capacity, In order to be able to supervise the myr- iad things that have to be done in tais gigantic Capitol plant, including all the buildings on Capitol Hill. Mr. FLLFNDER. Mr. President, will the Senator Yield? Mr. MONRONEY. I yield. Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator has tried to compare the salaries of the Sec- retary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms with the salary of a Senator. The Senator knows that in the last few years those two officers have received increases In pay whereas Senators have not. That Is why the salaries are so close together. Mr. MONRONEY. - I beg the Senator's pardon. We have not Increased the sal- aries of those employees. Mr. EILENDER. In 1962 there was a 7-percent across-the-board increase. Mr. MONRONEY. If my memory serves me correctly, the Sergeant at Arms did not- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964, Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15299 Mr. ELLENDER. All employees re- ceived an increase. Mr. MONRONEY. They did not get the full 7 percent. The limitation cut them off. Mr. ELLENDER. They did get an increase in 1962. Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator is more correct than I am, because they did receive an increase. But a differential exists. We would now make the differ- ential $2,500, which I believe is a proper differential between the salaries of those two officers and the salary of a Senator. Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator mean that a differential of $2,500 be- tween the salaries of the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate and a Senator is proper? Mr. MONRONEY. I believe the Sen- ator will find that that has generally been the range of the difference. Mr. ELLENDER. Is that the way the Senator evaluates it? Mr. MONRONEY. The difference be- tween the salaries of the Sergeant at Arms and a Senator? Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. The Secre- tary of the Senate has an automobile, and a chauffeur, and I believe this would amount to, if he is given the $27,500 which is provided in the bill more than a Senator's salary. Mr. MONRONEY. Ths Senator knows that the $2,500 differential is one that represents the difference between the two jobs. But those are the two prin- cipal officers of the Senate. We need efficient men in those offices. They spend a great deal of money running the housekeeping functions on our side of the Capitol. I believe the scale is proper and ought to be maintained. I ask that the amend- ment be rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana yield back the remainder of his time? Mr. ELT:PINDER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment of the Senator from Louisiana. All time having expired, and the yeas and nays, having been ordered, the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG], and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERT- SON] are absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAY11], and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are absence because of illness. I further announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] would vote "nay." On this vote, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG] is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] . If pres- ent and voting, the Senator from Ohio would vote "yea," and the Senator from Florida would vote "nay." Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Form], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HausicAl, and the Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL ] are neces- sarily absent. If present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HausgA] would vote "yea." The result was announced?yeas 25, nays 63, as follows: [No. 463 Leg.1 Aiken Allott Burdick Church Cooper Curtis Dominick =ender Goldwater Anderson Bartlett Beall Bennett Bible Boggs Brewster Byrd, W. Va. Cannon Carlson Case Clark Dirksen Dodd Douglas Eastland Edmondson Ervin Fulbright Gruening Hart YEAS-25 Gore Jordan, Idaho Lausche Mansfield McClellan McGovern Miller Morton Moss NAYS-63 Mundt Simpson Syrnington Talmadge Thurmond Williams, Del. Young, N. Dalt. Hartke Metcalf Hayden Monroney Hickenlooper Morse Hill Muskie Holland Nelson Humphrey Neuberger gnouye Pastore Jackson Pearson Javits Pell Johnston Prouty Jordan, N.C. Proxmire Keating Randolph Kuchel Ribicoff Long, Mo. Russell Long, La. Scott Magnuson Smith McCarthy Sparkman McGee Stennis McIntyre Tower McNamara Walters Mechem Williams, N.J. NOT VOTING-12 Bayh Fong Saltonstall Byrd, Va. Hruska Smathers Cotton Kennedy Yarborough Engle Robertson Young, Ohio So Mr. ELLENDER'S amendments (No. 1093) were rejected. GOOD GOVERNMENT NEEDS GOOD MEN: GOOD ming MUST BE PAID Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has passed, and the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has favorably reported, with amendments, the Government Employ- ees Salary Reform Act of 1964, H.R. 11049. I now urge Senate passage. Enactment of this bill would be a sig- nificant step towarupdating and mak- ing equitable the Federal pay scale. Present levels of payment represent poor economy in several respects. They do not give Government workers fair and reasonable pay. They make it increas- ingly difficult to recruit and retain top- flight men and women for Government service. They undercut Congress' de- clared principle that Government work- ers shall be paid wages comparable to those paid in analogous private positions. Their failure to provide adequate incen- tives or to attract a sufficient number of capable workers undermines our efforts to achieve efficiency and economy in Government. The pay adjustment bill would pro- vide salary increases for some 1,700,000 Government employees, including over 7,500 Federal workers located in Alaska. Over 1 million civil servants, includ- ing 6,822 In Alaska, are presently cov- ered by the Classification Act of 1949. The Alaska figure includes 1,323 Army employees, 1,158 with the Air Force, 1,105 with the Department of the Interior, and 1,434 with the FAA. The Classification Act also covers 692 Alaskans working with the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, 334 with the Depart- ment of Agriculture, 268 with the De- partment of Commerce, 166 with the Navy, and 145 with the Department of the Treasury. Salary increases granted by the pro- posed bill to Classification Act employees would be effective at all GS levels. They would average 4.2 percent. Workers at the GS-4 to GS-5 levels would receive boosts of over 6 percent; GS-3 and GS-6 employees would be raised by more than 5 percent. GS-7 to GS-8 increases would average around 4 percent, while those in grades 9 through 12 would run approx- imately 3 percent. Another 600,000 of the Federal em- ployees covered by the present bill are now classified under the postal field serv- ice, rural carrier, and fourth-class office schedules. This involves 669 Alaskans, including 144 postmasters of fourth-class Post offices. Employees covered by the postal field service schedule would re- ceive an average salary increase of 5.6 Percent. The boost would be over 6 per- cent for employees at PFS levels 1 through 4, 5.2 percent at PFS-5, 4 per- cent at PFS-6, and approximately 3 per- cent at PFS levels 7 through 11. A new basis of computation would be used in determining the salaries of post- masters of fourth-class post offices. The formula for "revenue units," upon which salaries would be based, would consider the amount of mail handled and the service transactions carried out, as well as the gross receipts. This promises to establish a more realistic wage scale for those postmasters, long underpaid, in our small or seasonal offices. Other sections of the pay adjustment bill increase salaries in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, in the Foreign Service, and in county ASC offices. Increases are also provided for legislative employees and officers, Members of Congress, Fed- eral executives, District of Columbia ex- ecutives and officers, judicial employees, and Federal judges. The bill is thus a comprehensive one, attempting to remedy inequities at vari- ous wage levels. It acknowledges that top Federal officials cannot expect sal- aries absolutely commensurate with lu- crative private positions; but it still recognizes the need for appreciable in- creases, in light of the many responsibili- ties these officials must fulfill and the hardships to which present salary scales subject them. At the same time, the bill attempts to establish equitable rates down the line, and to set up meaningful ratios between the various grade levels. Thus, we are attempting not only to provide for much- needed increases, but also to establish wage levels that will encourage maxi- mum effort and will provide incentives for continuance and advancement in the Federal service. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2 It Is all too easy, Mr. President, to underestimate the services rendered by Federal employees working throughout the country?from the highest official levels to the smallest post offices in our Alaska villages. We also tend to under- estimate the salaries which these public servants deserve and need. These are the people who must administer the many Federal programs and services; they are the people on whom, in large measure, our domestic welfare and our security and leadership in the world arena are dependent. It is simply not fair for these employees to be underpaid, nor can the country afford it. It is false economy to pay inadequate wages to those upon whom Government efficiency depends. We must attract and hold our most capable citizens to public service. If we are to do so, we must give them adequate compensation and incentive. Mr. President, I urge the passage of H.R. 11049 as reported by the Senate committee. The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The bill Is open to further amendment. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OlekiCER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky will be stated. The legislative clerk read the amend- ment as follows: At the end of line 2, page 107, add the following: "rixt.is "Any compensation, honorarium, or other payment received by any Member of Con- gress for any lecture, appearance, speech, or article written over and above the actual ex- penses involved shall be turned over to the Treasury of the United States." MESSAGE FROM ink, HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public ac- commodations, to authorize the Attor- ney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Com- mission on Civil Rights, to Prevent dis- crimination in federally assisted pro- grams, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. CIVIL RIGHTS?ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled bill (HR. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attor- ney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Com- mission on Civil Rights, to prevent dis- crimination in federally assisted pro- grams, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes, and it was signed by the President pro tempore. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield to me for one moment? Mr. MORTON. I yield. Mr. JAVI'TS. Mr. President, we have just heard the historic announcement to the Senate that the House has passed finally the civil rights bill, the most momentous piece of legislation, in my judgment, which has come out of the Senate since the declaration of war in World War II. I thank the Senator for the opportu- nity at least to call it markedly to the attention of the Senate. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. I merely wish the Itscoao today to note that the act which has just been passed by the House, to which the Speaker has affixed his signa- ture. the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is not only one of the most important PleCes of legislation of our time, but it has had amazing bipartisan support. The vote in the House was 289 to 126. I salute the Members of the House and commend Members of the Senate. I be- lieve we have performed a no. iub c service. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES REFORM ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (HR. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal G-wernment, and for other purposes. Mr. MeCLELLAN. Mr. President, I should like to inquire of the Senator from Kentucky if his amendment would apply to Members of the Senate while Congress was in recess. Mr. MORTON. Yes; it would apply. Mr. McCLELLAN. It would apply the year round? Mr. MORTON. It would apply the year round. We are on the payroll the year round. Mr. McCLFJ,LAN. In other words, we should devote all our time to the busi- ness here, and we could not devote any of our time to making public speeches. Is that what the Senator means? Mr. MORTON. I have no objection to making public speeches. , Mr. MeCLELLAN. But they should be made free of charge. Is that it? Mr. MORTON. Yes. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORTON. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator include in his amendment all income from legal fees and fees collected as di- rectors and also income from dividends? Would he provide that all such sums should be turned over to the Treasury of the United States? Mr. MORTON. If the Senator wishes to offer such an amendment in his own right, it might be considered. I do not see why a person must be destitute of all property to be able to serve in this body. My point is this. I made speeches in the 1930's, long before I became a Mere- her of Congress': I was never paid for those speeches. Now, merely because I happen to be a Member of the Sena-;e, people offer me r dollars to come and make a speech. This is only because I happen to be a U.S. Senator, on tae public payroll. When I did it in tae 1930's, I was not on the public payrcll. I therefore think that anything that is offered to me in this connection because I happen to be a U.S. Senator, while be- ing paid by the taxpayers of the United States, should be turned into the Treas- ury of the United States. I feel that I am an employee of the Government. Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator Include legal fees? Does he believe they should be turned over to the Treasury? I know of various lawyers whose in- comes increased after they had become U.S. Senators. Mr. MORTON. I am not a lawyer, and I am therefore not qualified to re- spond to the Senator's question. When I was an officer of the U.S. Government, In the State Department, I was not per- mitted to accept any sort of honorarium. I was not even permitted to allow the associations that asked me to speak be- fore them to pay my expenses. Either I paid the expenses myself, or the Gov- ernment paid for them. Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator amend his amendment so that all legal fees should go to the Treasury? Mr. MORTON. I should like to have the Senator offer his own amendment. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator wants to be fair. I am sure and make his amendment apply equally. Mr. MORTON. Yes. What is it that the Senator wants me to do? Mr. DOUGLAS. To include also legal and directors' fees in his amendment. Mr. MORTON. In other words, the Senator wants to "louse up" my amend- ment so that it cannot be adopted. Is that it? Mr. DOUGLAS. No. I am asking him whether he would be willing to include directors' fees and legal fees, and any amount received from private business, and also I think dividends from whis:ty stocks. Mr. McCLELLAN. And cigarettes. Mr. DOUGLAS. And from cigarette stocks, too. Mr. PASTORE. And from writing books. Mr. MORTON. I understand that the Senator wants to say that anything that any Member receives, aside from his st.1- ary as a Member of Congress, should be reported and turned in to the Treasury. Is that correct? Mr. DOUGLAS. If we follow the precedent of the Senator's amendment, that is what we should do. Mr. MORTON. In other words, he would have us turn over our dividends from whatever source they were re- ceived? Mr. DOUGLAS. Also especially from whisky and cigarette stocks, because those items, according to the doctors, are very injurious to the human race. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15301 Mr. MORTON. Cigarette stocks have been rather sick lately, I can tell the Senator. I cannot accept the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Illinois. I suggest that he offer it in his own time as a separate amendment. I yield to the Senator from New Jer- sey such time as he may desire to take. Mr. CASE. I believe there is a germ of rightness in this amendment. How- ever, logically the amendment should in- clude not only income from speeches and writings, but also earnings from any source. If a person is a director of a bank, undoubtedly it is because he is a Member of the Senate. I see no reason why a bank director's fees should not be turned over to the Treasury. I would not have the amendment apply to earn- ings from securities or property owned by the person. However, I believe any other kind of earnings ought to be in- cluded. I ask the Senator if he would accept this serious suggestion to amend his amendment accordingly. Mr. MORTON. The Senator means fees collected as a director of a bank. Mr. CASE. I mean any earned income as opposed to income from securities, for example. Any fees a lawyer may earn due to his being a Member of the Senate should be included. I do not believe that only one kind of earning should be in- cluded. ? Mr. MORTON. I cannot agree with the Senator. Suppose I decide to do some moonlighting by babysitting or raking leaves. Should those earnings be included? Mr. CASE. I cannot imagine anyone trusting the Senator from Kentucky with a daughter of impressionable age. Mr. MORTON. At 57 years of age, I can. Mr. CASE. Any earned income might well be due to the fact that one holds the position of Senator. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, may I respectfully suggest that the amend- ment be withdrawn? Mr. MORTON. In an effort to be helpful to my colleagues, and to get this measure on the road, I will accede to the suggestion of my distinguished leader. But before I withdraw the amendment I should like to respond briefly to the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. CASE. I withdraw my remarks. Mr. MORTON. I am a director of a bank. When I go to a directors' meet- ing I am paid $35. I do not get to more than two such directors' meetings a year, because of the long sessions the majority party has been holding in the Senate. I happen to be a director because my grandfather started a little bank, and this ultimately developed into the bank of which I am presently a director. When I attend a meeting as a director I am paid $35. I get to about two meet- ings a year. I think my responsibility is far greater than my compensation. If something happens to the bank be- cause I am not there, I can be sued for I do not know how much. Mr. PASTURE. It might be the very best excuse the Senator could have if he wished to resign from the directorship. No. 133-8 The amendment would give him that ex- cuse. Mr. MORTON. I have tried to resign. Every time I try the president comes to me and say, "Please don't resign." So I stay as a director. Mr. PASTORE. The Senator should accept the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, because that would be the best reason he could have for re- signing. Mr. MORTON. Very well, I will re- sign from the bank, and I withdraw the amendment. The PRESIDING OrviCER. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1079, and ask the clerk to report it as It has been modified. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read. The legislative clerk read the modified amendment, as follows: At the end of the bill add a new section as follows: "SEC. . (a) Section 2(a) of the Act en- titled 'An Act to prohibit payment of an- nuities to officers and employees of the United States convicted of certain offenses, and for other purposes, approved Septem- ber 1, 1954, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2283(a) ) , is amended to read as follows: "'(a) There shall not be paid to any per- son who, on, or after September 26, 1961, has refused or refuses, or knowingly and willfully has failed or fails, to appear, testify, or produce any book, paper, record, or other document, relating to his service as an offi- cer or employee of the Government or Mem- bers of Congress in any proceeding before a congressional committee, for any period subsequent to September 26, 1961, or sub- sequent to the date of such failure or re- fusal of such person, whichever date is later, any annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of such person (subject to the exceptions contained in sections 10 (2) and (3) of this Act) which is creditable toward such annuity or retired pay.' "(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of such section 2 (a), as amended no person shall be required, by reason of the amend- ment made by this section, to refund any annuity or retired pay paid to such person prior to the date of enactment of this Act." Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, the amendment as it has been modified merely provides that any public official or former public official who since September 1961 has been re- quested to appear before a congressional committee to answer questions in line with his official conduct, elected to take the fifth amendment rather than answer the questions would be allowed to receive a refund of all of his contributions to the retirement fund, plus interest, but he would not be eligible for retirement benefits. In 1954 Congress enacted a similar law. On September 26, 1961, the law was repealed, over my 'objection. Recently there was an instance in which a former public official took the fifth amendment rather than answer questions that were directed to him about his conduct as a public official. The amendment does not deal with the right of an individual to take the fifth amendment, but if one who is or has been a public official took the fifth amend- ment, rather than answer questions which were properly asked concerning his official duties, he would forfeit his right to any further contributions so far as the taxpayers were concerned. He would have the right to withdraw all of his own contributions, plus interest. There is no question about that. He would be entitled to them. But I do not believe that the portion of his retirement fund which would normally be paid by the Federal Government?by the tax- payers?should be allowed him. That should be forfeited. That is all that my amendment provides. Congress enacted such a law in 1954, `and it was in effect for 7 years. It was repealed in 1961. This amendment would reinstate the act as of the date of repeal. The amendment as originally printed referred, as did the act of 1954, to tak- ing the fifth amendment before courts. I have stricken that provision upon the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois. The amendment now deals only with employees or former employees of the Federal Government who take the fifth amendment, rather than testify before a congressional committee. I hope that the chairman of the com- mittee will accept the amendment. If he will not I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr, JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senator from Delaware a question. How broad is the amend- ment? Whom would it cover? What kind of cases? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It would cover any employee or former employee of the Federal Government who was called before a congressional committee to answer questions concerning his of- ficial activities as a public servant if he took the filth amendment or had taken It since the repeal of the act in 1961. Mr. JOHNSTON. The fifth amend- ment, which many persons have invoked, Is a part of the Constitution. Would the Senator's amendment be in violation of a person's right under that amendment? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I did not hear the Senator's question. Mr. JOHNSTON. If an employee ap- peared before a committee and refused to answer some question because to do so might incriminate him?which he would have the right to do under the fifth amendment?would his annuity be taken away from him? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. If the question were directed to the person's conduct as a public official, yes. Why should it not? Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator's amendment would penalize him and might possibly cause him to disclose some knowledge concerning national security. He might be asked to disclose informa- tion of that nature, and be penalized un- justly for not doing so. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. No. The amendment merely provides that if an employee of the U.S. Government wished to invoke the fifth amendment rather than answer proper questions asked him by a congressional committee concern- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ing his conduct as a public official, he would merely forfeit any further right to the contributions so far as the tax- payers' part is concerned. Why should he not forfeit it? Mr. JOHNSTON. Would we not be taking away from him the annuity on which he had paid, and as to which the Government had entered into a contract with him, because he refused to answer a question and invoked the fifth amend- ment? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. That Is done in the armed services now. The Senator voted for that. Every Member of the Senate approved it. Under existing law if one has served in the armed services for 20 years and has established his full eligibility for a pension, and then reenlists, and in the course of his reenlistment is dishonor- ably discharged, an additional penalty is imposed on him. He loses all the re- tirement benefits for which he would have been eligible had he not reenlisted. That is the law. What is wrong with providing the same requirement with respect to civil employees of the Government? Anyone who is affected by the amendment can return the next day and say, "I am wil- ling to talk and answer the questions," and can reinstate himself. He would have complete control with respect to answering the questions. I am not suggesting that the amend- ment applies to questions about his out- side activities; but certainly an official of the U.S. Government should be re- quired to answer before a congressional committee questions that are asked of him In connection with his official activities. That is all I am proposing. If a penalty is to be suffered he will Im- pose it on himself. If he wishes to re- move it he can advise the committee the very next day that he is willing to answer. Mr. JOHNSTON. But a question of internal security might be involved in his refusal to answer. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It could be a question of personal security as for as the law is concerned. So far as the armed services are concerned if a man goes off and gets drunk or cre- ates an incident on the outside, com- pletely nonrelated to the armed services, he may receive a dishonorable discharge and thus will forfeit his pension rights. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield. Mr. McCIRT.T.AN. Would the amend- ment apply to Members of Congress? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes. Mr. McCLELLAN. It would apply to Members of the Senate? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes; to any public official who refused to testify before a committee and took the fifth amendment on the ground that to re- spond to questions of the committee would incriminate him. Mr. MeCLELLAN. I merely thought that if such a provision were to be in- cluded in the bill, it should apply Co Members of Congress, as well as to mem- bers of the staff and other employees. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Oh, yes. It would apply to any officer or employee of the Government. This question was raised once before. Mr. President, to avoid any misunder- standing I ask unanimous consent that I may modify my amendment on page 2, after the word "Government" in line 1, to include "or Members of Congress." Then there will be no misunderstanding. I am sure they are already covered, but I ask unanimous consent that the words "Members of Congress" be inserted at that point because we want to be cer- tain they are covered. I thought they were covered, but I want to be certain. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the amendment is modified accordingly. Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. ERVIN. The amendment is clearly unconstitutional under the de- cision of the Supreme Court in the Slochower case. In that case, a profes- sor of the College of the City of New York was called before the House Com- mittee on Un-American Activities and interrogated concerning his official con- duct as a teacher. He took the fifth amendment. An ordinance of the city of New York provided that whenever an employee of the city of New York took the fifth amendment when he was being interrogated about his official conduct, he was automatically discharged. When that case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court ruled that it was unconstitu- tional to penalize a man for exercising his constitutional right or constitutional privilege not to incriminate himself. That is exactly what the amendment offered by the able and distinguished Senator from Delaware would do. The amendment is a flagrant, brazen viola- tion of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Mr. MUNDT. I invite the attention of the Senator from North Carolina to the fact that he is talking about a case in- volving a teacher in a college in New York appearing before a Government committee. That is not a relevant case to the argument, because we are talk- ing about the right of the Government to deal with its employees and to establish criteria and rules and regulations con- cerning employee benefits while working for Uncle Sam. It is about time that Congress did take some action to be sure that those who have important information that the country needs will get it, because our employees of the Government are not Permitted to lurk behind the fifth amend- ment and continue to enjoy all of the benefits that they would have if they were responsive to the needs of the country and gave Congress the infor- mation it requires. We enacted the legislation one time before. It was never ruled unconstitu- tional by any court. Congress, in a mo- ment of exuberance, or carelessness, or something, repealed it without adequate debate. I am glad that we have this issue be- fore us again and that we have a roll- July 2 call vote ordered on it. I believe that it is time Congress asserted itself, as to whether it has the right to establish criteria governing employment of those working for it, and if Congress has that right, it has every right in the world to establish whether they will get employ- ment benefits or retirement benefits. I support the amendment and I hope it will pass overwhelmingly on the rollcall vote. Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield me 30 seconds? Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from North Carolina for 30 seconds. The PRESIDING 01010.11,-En. Witnout objection, the Senator from North Caro- lina is recognized for 30 seconds. Mr. ERVIN. I would say to my good friend, the Senator from South Da:tota that I have been talking about a case on all fours with the amendmen-, of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WIL- LIAMS]. I was talking about a case in which the Supreme Court held -hat whenever the Government undertakes to penalize a man for exercising rights conferred upon him by the Constitution, the action of the Government is un- constitutional. Mr. 'WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 30 seconds. Mr. WILL-TAMS of Delaware. I con- cur in what the Senator from South Dakota has pointed out, that there is no comparison between these two cases. The case mentioned involves an em- ployee of the State of New York who was directed to come before a commit- tee of Congress. In this instance, these are employees of the U.S. Government, asked to come before a committee of the Congress. We are dealing here solely with Federal Gov- ernment operations and nothing else. As I stated before, we passed this legis- lation In 1954. It stayed on the statute books until 1961. It was not declared un- constitutional?it was repealed by Congress. Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield for a question? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield. Mr. KEATING. Is it not a fact that under the Senator's amendment, if such a person does take the fifth amendment, he can and does get back the amounts which he has paid in to date with what- ever interest is allowed? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Government pays a refund, yes. Mr. KEATING. That is the important distinction between this and the case referred to by the Senator from North Carolina. In that case the man was fired without a refund; in other words, he was penalized. In this case, he is not penalized. He gets back what he has paid in, with interest.. He simply does not thereafter reap fur- ther benefits from the taxpayers of the country. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator is correct. He can reinstate this on 24 hours' notice by offering to appear before the committee. We have been doing this for years with the armed serv- ices. It is the law today. Each member of the armed services has accumulated retirement benefits eligible after 20 years. If he then elects to reenlist for 1 year or 5 years and during the course of that reenlistment he is dishon- orably discharged or receives a discharge other than honorable he forfeits all of his privileges and retirement benefits. This is true even though he could have retired prior to a second enlistment and received such benefits. That is the law. There is nothing unusual in this proce- dure. It has never been declared uncon- stitutional. It was on the statute books for 7 years. Let us face it?this could be called the Bobby Baker amendment. Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield me another 30 seconds? Mr. JOHNSTON. I am glad to yield 30 seconds to the Senator from North Carolina. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recog- nized for 30 seconds. Mr. ERVIN. This amendment is not only unconstitutional on the grounds I have mentioned, in that it constitutes an attempt to penalize a man for the exercise of his rights under the Constitu- tion but it is also unconstitutional on another ground. The amendment is retroactive to September 1961 and pen- alizes a man for an act already com- mitted and therefore is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution which prohibits passage of ex post facto laws. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield briefly tome? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the amendment offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS]. This amend- ment simply provides that any Govern- ment employee who claims the privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the fifth amendment to the Constitution would thereafter be deprived of any retirement benefits due to him from a Government retirement plan. The amendment in no way prohibits a per- son from invoking the provisions of the fifth amendment. The provisions of the pending amend- ment differ from the situation which existed and led to the Supreme Court decision of Slochower against the Board of Higher Education of New York City, which was handed down in 1955. In that case, the individual who claimed the fifth amendment before a Senate com- mittee was automatically discharged from his job as professor at Brooklyn College, in New York. A contractual employment relationship existed be- tween the city of New York and the appellant Slochower, in that case. How- ever, Mr. President, there is no contrac- tual obligation on the part of Congress to provide retirement benefits. Such benefits are modified from time to time . Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE and may be withdrawn by Congress at will. Under these circumstances, it is clear that Congress may provide for denial of retirement benefits in individual cases upon such grounds as it may deter- mine valid. Under the provisions of the pending amendment, if an individual took refuge in the fifth amendment, he could still retain his position, but he would forfeit his retirement pay; and the amount he had already put in would be returned to him. It is argued that the retroactive feature of this amendment makes this proposal an ex post facto law. In the 1798 case of Calder against Bull, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the prohibition against ex post facto laws contained in the Constitution applied only to penal and criminal statutes. This amendment does not make it a crime to invoke the fifth amendment, and, therefore, does not violate the pro- hibition against ex post facto laws as contained in the Constitution. It is es- sential to the proper functioning of the Government that it be able to secure from its employees information concern- ing the performance of their official duties. Refusal by Government em- ployees to disclose pertinent facts and records concerning their official duties constitutes a serious disservice to the Government and the Nation. Employees who do refuse to make such disclosures should by no means be beneficiaries of rewards, over and above their salaries. They should be denied retirement bene- fits. I strongly support adoption of the Williams amendment. Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield tome? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Montana. Mr. METCALF. Is it the understand- ing of the Senator from Delaware that this amendment is prospective, or would it be retroactive and apply to a pension which has already been earned? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The amendment is both. There is not a sin- gle Senator who does not know what the purpose of this amendment is. Let us vote on it accordingly. Mr. METCALF. Would it not be open to the legal objection that if it were retroactive and applied to pensions al- ready earned, would it not? Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The amendment provides in this last para- graph that it would not require a refund of any annuities which have been col- lected prior to the enactment. It does stops the benefits prospectively, but it does not require retroactive pay- ment back into the Government if a man has retired prior thereto and has drawn in excess of the amount to which he would be entitled. Thus there is no retroactive payment. It does say that if he takes the fifth amendment that from that time on, from that day forward, he would not be elig- ible to any further benefits of the tax- payers' money. Congress passed such a bill once; it repealed it in 1961. This would reinstate it, and we all know what the purpose of it is. Let us vote on it. 15303 Mr. METCALF. This would only ap- ply to pensions previously earned after the amendment is adopted? Mn WILLIAMS of Delaware. It would apply to all pension privileges. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Delaware has expired. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield to me? Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 3 minutes. It happens that he held hearings on this particular matter in 1961. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I hope very strongly that this amendment will be soundly defeated. It is an old chest- nut and goes back to the hysteria sur- rounding the attack on Government employees during the height of the Mc- Carthy scare some 10 Tears ago when Federal employees were quite literally in fear of their lives or of their jobs or of their pay. It was a time when the name Alger Hiss was bruited about this Cham- ber and everyone quivered with fear when that name was mentioned, because of the idea that if they did anything that might conceivably support Alger Hiss? who was, it is true, a traitor to his coun- try?they would be damned by guilt by association with the same unfortunate public reputation. On September 1, 1961, as chairman of the Retirement Subcommittee, it was my good fortune to report a bill dealing with H.R. 6141, proposing to forfeit civilian annuities and military retirement pay. We made a most comprehensive study of that particular bill and,we concluded that it was not in the natronal interest, that it was probably unconstitutional, that it violated the civil liberties of em- ployees of the United States and in the end, I am happy to say, the report of that committee was upheld by the Senate and the so-called Hiss bill was not passed. We are now dealing with the spiritual . successor of that particular piece of legis: lation. The fifth amendment is enshrined as a part of that Constitution. It is not a particularly popular amendment but it is an essential part of the civil liberties of American citizens, determined by our forefathers when they framed the Con- stitution to be essential to that freedom for which they had fought the war of the Revolution. This is an effort to whittle away at the sacred right given to all Americans to take their liberties, to speak their piece, and to assert the right against discrim- ination. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Pennsylvania has expired. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask Unanimous consent that I may proceed for 1 additional minute. Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator from Pennsyl- vania. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500650001,9 15304 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 additional minute. Mr. CLARK. If they so felt, the ques- tion as to whether they should forfeit their annuities or not would not be de- cided in advance of the fact.. This Is a matter that we should leave on an ad hoc basis as to the situation if it should arise at some time. I think this is fun- damentally an un-American amendment. I hope it will be defeated. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield me 2 minutes? Mr. CARLSON. I yield the Senator from New Jersey 2 minutes. The PRESIDING OteriCER, The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. CASE. I think there is some question as to whether this may or may not be within the constitutional power so far as it relates to service heretofore rendered and rights already accrued. I do not really have any doubt but that this would not be separable, or that serv- ice hereafter rendered and rights for services hereafter rendered would be constitutional. The Senator from Pennsylvania said that it goes back to Alger Him. I sug- gest that it goes back to at least a. gen- eration before that. I remember as a young man in New York when Governor Roosevelt required that public employees who failed to waive immunity before grand juries in regard to their official acts would have to leave the public serv- ice. And Jimmy Walker was one of those. And this is how it happened. It is a direct precedent, I think, for the action which we seek to take here. I do not think it really has anything to do with punishing a person. I think this has to do with the Senate's proper efforts to police itself and its employees. I wish that the Committee on Rules and Administration had exhibited the kind of energy and diligence in the matter still before it?although It claims now to have finished?that the Senator from. Dela- ware [Mr. WILLIAMS] exhibited in re- gard to giving us the tools with which to do the job. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes on the bill? Mr. CARLSON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, we have been looking backward. There is clear evidence of an effort to confuse the na- ture of the amendment by talking about Alger Hiss and times long past. I do not regard this amendment as particularly concerning Alger Hiss, or concerning this body. This 18 not what this amendment is directed at. Let us bring it out in the open. This amendment is not directed against those from whom we might seek to recover retroactively nearly as much as it is designed to cover a situation which will no doubt happen in the fu- ture?perhaps in the near future. This amendment, if adopted, would re- turn to Bobby Baker whatever invest- ment he has paid in, with the interest allowed by the Government on the re- fund. It would make it impossible for Bobby Baker to draw a pension in re- ward for the disservice which he has ren- dered to the Senate and to the people of the United States. If we want to go on record as saying that Bobby Baker is to be rewarded, that Bobby Baker is to be treated as if he had not defied the Senate, and a Senate com- mittee?one of their most trusted em- ployees?if we want to say, "Let us shovel out the Government money to Bobby Baker," we should join the friends of Bobby Baker. But I will not do it. I will support the Williams amendment for the reasons that I stated. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had agreed to the following con- current resolutions. in which it re- quested the concurrence of the Senate: H. Con_Res. 321. Concurrent resolution es- tablishing that when the House adjourns on Thursday, July 2, 1964. it stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday. July 20, 1984: W Con, Res. 322. Concurrent resolution au- thorizing the Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions until July 20, 1984; and H. Con Res. 323. Concurrent resolution re- questing the President to return the en- rolled bill (HR. 10053) to the House of Representatives, and for other purposes. HOUSE ADJOURNMENT FROM JULY 2 TO JULY 20. 1964?SENATE AD- JOURNMENT FROM JULY 10 to JULY 20, 1964 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Pending business be laid aside temporarily, for not to exceed 2 minutes, probably less. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears no objec- tion. It is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask that the res- olution be read. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The concurrent resolution will be stated for the information of the Senate. The LEGLSLATFVE CLERK. House Con- current Resolution 321: Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring). That when the House adjourns on Thursday, July 2, 1964, Lt stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday. July 20, 1984. Mr, MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment which I ask to have stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the end of the resolution, it is proposed to add the following resolving clause: Resolved further, That when the Senate adjourns on Friday, July 10, 1964, It stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridan, July 20. 1984. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, is the resolution subject to amendment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The res- olution is subject to amendment. Mr. MUNDT. I do not want to pro- long a controversy. But I have an July 2 amendment to suggest if the majority leader would be willing to accept it and make it a part of the resolution. I sug- gest adding the words, "also the U.S. Senate." Mr. MANSFIELD We are included, beginning an the 10th. Mr. MUNDT. The Senate is covered? Mr. MANSFIFt.) Yes. That is what I wanted to be sure of. The amendment was agreed to. The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 321) , as amended, was agreed to. AUTHORITY TO SIGN ENROLLED Brt:t AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS DURING ADJOURNMENT Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I send to the desk another resolution, to make sure that we are not caught short- handed this time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the resolution for the in- formation of the Senate. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. House Con- current Resolution 322: Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That notwithstand- ing any adjournment of the two Houses until July 20, 1984, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tem- pore of the Senate be, and they are hereby, authorized to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly passed by the two Howes and found truly enrolled. The PRESIDING 01.r ICER. Without objection, the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 322) is agreed to. REQUEST TO PRESIDENT FOR RE- TURN OF ENROLLED BILL (H.R. 10053) TO THE HOUSE. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the next concurrent resolution coming over from the House. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the concurrent resolution. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. House Con- current Resolution 323: The President of the United States is re- quested to return to the House of Repre- sentatives the enrolled bill (HR. 10053) to amend section 502 of the Merchant Marine Act. 1936, relating to construction differential subsidies. If and when said bill is returned by the President, the action of the Presiding Officers of the two Houses in signing the bill shall be deemed rescinded; and the Clerk of the House is authorized and di- rected, in the reenrollment of said bill, to make the following correction: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: "That the proviso in the second sentence of subsection (b) of section 502 of the Merchant Marine Act. 1938, as amended (48 U.S.C. 1152 (b)), is amended by striking out 'June 30, 1984.' and inserting in lieu thereof 'June 30. 1985.'." The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the:-e objection? Mr. HOLLAND. I object. It is im- portant and excellent legislation. There may be amendments. We do not have anything in the RECORD on it. Mr. MANSFIELD. I withdraw the resolution. We can go back on limited time and attend to that later. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 AI*rove elease 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 ONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15305. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1961 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, my judgment is that Congress can place a condition upon employees. I believe if some people believe that this will not affect anyone retroactively, they will be disappointed. Mr. CARLSON. I yield 3 minutes to the Sentor from Delaware. Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, Congress has already retro- actively taken away the retirement bene- fits of Alger Hiss. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania did not include a re- peal of that proposal in his bill. He exempted it from repeal in the bill in 1961. The provision of the 1954 act had taken away the retirement benefits of Alger Hiss retroactively. No man or court has ruled against it. We have done it once. We can do it again. The only reason that the law was re- pealed in 1961 was in my opinion for the sole purpose of making eligible for re- tirement benefits every crook and scoundrel who has been convicted in court for acceptance of bribes or em- bezzlement of Government funds under the exposures of the Internal Revenue scandals. That was the 1954 act, of which I was a cosponsor. It was designed to deny retirement benefits to all crooks and scoundrels who had been found to have accepted bribes in connection with their official activities or who were convicted of the embezzlement of Government funds. Those people were reinstated on Government retirement rolls by the 1961 legislation sponsored by the senior Sena- tor from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK]. My amendment here today would rein- state the provision of the 1954 act relat- ing to the fifth amendment. Senators know why it is being done; it is to prevent Bobby Baker from collecting a Govern- ment retirement pension of nearly $10,- 000 per year while taking the fifth amendment before a congressional com- mittee. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 2 minutes? Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Okla- homa for 2 minutes. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the purpose for repealing the act in 1961 was because the act covered every phase of Government. Dozens of cases of letter carriers that were caught in the arms of the law without having been guilty of any crime remotely connected with the faithful performance of their duties as Government employees came to the attention of the committee. The bill would not affect one man, as the Senator would have us do. It would provide for retroactive punishment. We would not only enact a law covering a case which had already occurred, but also we would bring into a state of fear, I believe, every one of our nearly 2 mil- lion Government employees. They would not be subject to normal prosecu- tion or penalties. They would be subject to a penalty assessed against them for failure to divulge everything they knew in response to a question asked by a congressional committee. The amend- ment does not even provide that the committee must be a regular committee. It could be an ad hoc committee. It could be a subcommittee. There are many such committees. But every Gov- ernment employee would be subject to the punishment of discharge from his position. If it were the decisien of the Senate to pass a bill which would effect the cessation of employment of such an em- ployee, I would be wholly in favor of Imposing such a penalty of the loss of one's job. I should be perfectly willing to see any law that applies to any one of the 190 million people in this Nation applied to Government employees. But I hardly think that taking away a re- tirement fund that a letter carrier or someone working in a Government de- partment has acquired through faithful performance is proper legislation. Such an employee has put his money up. He was not putting it in a savings bank; he was buying an insurance policy for his retirement, and that policy was signed by the Government of the United States at the time he bought it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 additional minute? Mr, JOHNSTON. I yield the Senator from Oklahoma 1 more minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. MONRONEY. It is now proposed to attach to a pay bill that involves a thousand different items, without 1 minute's hearings before any committee, an amendment of the nature of the one proposed. I do not believe our committee would be the proper committee to hear the testimony, but the Senator did not even appear before our committee to present his amendment. In less than 30 min- utes we are asked to pass on a question that does not involve a job status that an employee would have to forfeit. The amendment would compel him to sacri- fice the contract that he had and on which he had been paying. Of course, he would receive back his money with interest. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 1 additional minute? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 more min- ute to the Senator from Oklahoma. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. MONRONEY. Whom would we punish? The full range of Federal law to put him in jail is available if the employee could be convicted before a jury of his peers. Full action can be taken on that question. But whom would we damage by the amendment? We would damage the wife or the chil- dren who would be the beneficiaries of the insurance policy that the employees had bought in good faith. I am not ready to vote for the amend- ment of the Senator from Delaware be- cause I do not believe it is in the Amer- ican tradition. I respect the statement of my friend the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Eavm], who is a great lawyer, that the amendment would be unconstitutional. I believe the thing to do is to pass the bill, and permit the proper legislative committee to conduct hearings on the proposal. It should not be added, at this late hour, as a rider to the bill, for it would jeopardize the pension and retire- ment funds that have been created over the years. The PRESIDING OrrICER. All time has expired. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] on the bill. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, there is not a rural mail carrier who could be brought under the bill unless that rural mail carrier were called before a con- gressional committee and refused to dis- close before that committee some im- portant information he had vital to the hearing, in which case he should not be entitled to the benefits of the pension program. By the adoption of the Williams amendment, we can at least keep the bill from being labeled as a bill for the relief of Bobby Baker. That is what it adds up to. That is the instant case. We have taken care of his case. The ques- tion is, should we perpetuate the benefits of Government service for a man who has refused to come before a congres- sional committee or should we not? I believe we should not. At the same time, I think we should make clear to other faithless employees of the Federal Government that they will be expected to testify when they are called upon. I recommend adoption of the Williams amendment. The PRESIDING 0.to.toiCER. The question is on agreeing to the modified amendment of the Senator from Dela- ware [Mr. Wmainws]. On this ques- tion all time has expired, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TAL- MADGE] is absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH] are absent because of illness. I further announce that the Senator from Florida [MT. SMATHERB] and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting. the Senator from Texas [Mr. Yintsosoucu] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATTIERS] NVOUld each vote "nay." Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9. 15306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Mr, KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COT- row], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Forza], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Iiansical, and the Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. Sadiacaissaaa] are neces- sarily absent. If present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hausaal and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] would each vote "yea." The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 52, as follows: No. 464 Leg.) Aiken Allott Beall Bennett Boggs Byrd. Va. Carlson Case Church Cooper Curtis Dirksen Dominick Anderson Bartlett Bible Brewster Burdick Byrd. W. Va. Cannon Clark Dodd Edmondson Falencler Ervin Eulbright Gore Ciruening Hart Hartke Hayden Balla Cotton Engle Fong YEAS-38 Douglaa Eastland Goldwater Hickenlooper Javlts Jordan, Idaho Keating Kuchel Lausche McClellan Mechem Miller Morton NAYS-52 Hill Holland Humphrey Inouye Jackson Johnston Jordan, N.C. Long, Mo. Long, La. Magnuson Mansfield McCarthy McGee McGovern McIntyre McNamara Metcalf Monroney NOT VOTING-10 Mundt Pastore Pearson Prouty Scott Simpson Smith Thurmond Tower Williams, N.J. Williams, Del. Young, N. flak. Morse Moss Muskie Nelson Neuberger Pell Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Robertson Russell Sparkman Stennis Symington Walters Young, Ohio Hruska Kennedy Baltonstall Eimathers Talmadge Yarborough So Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware's amends inent, as modified, was rejected. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, while the majority leader is In the Chamber, I should like to ask hint If he can clarify for the Members of the Senate what the schedule is likely to be starting with Monday, and whether there will be any yea and nay votes, or whether any major items will come up for consideration be- fore the recess on Friday, July 10. Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, the distinguished minority leader and I have discussed this matter, and we expect ap- propriation and other bills of worthwhile significance to come up next week. The Senate is not remaining in session until the 10th of July for the fun of it. We intend to conduct business of the Senate. We are very hopeful that there will be legislation available Monday which will be taken up, and very likely there will be some legislation which may cause a little controversy, and therefore raise the possibility of quorum calls and votes. Mr. KEATING. Mx. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MANSFIELD I yield. Mr. KEATING. Does the Senator from Montana include in that statement the possibility of votes on Mo ?a ? Mr. MANSFIELD Yes. GOVERNMENT EMPLOY REFORM ACT OF 1964 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (HR. 11049) to adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1091. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio will be stated. The legislative clerk read the amend- ment iNo. 1091), as follows: At the end of the bill add the following new section: "Sze. 502. Section 1(e) of the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2251 (Cl) is amended to read as follows: " '(e) The term "average salary" shall mean the annual rate resulting from aver- aging over all periods of civilian service used In the computation of an annuity under this Act a Member's or an employee's rates of basic salary in effect during such periods, wl th elch rate weighted by the time it was in effect'." The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will take their seats or retire to the cloak- rooms. Mr LAUSCHE. Mr. President, during the discussion of the bill mention was made of the adverse impact which the Passage of the bill would have on the retirement fund for public employees. It is admitted that the impact would be in the sum of $1,250 million. The figure is completely separate and apart from the $550 million cost o/ the bill by way of increased salaries. When the Public Employees Retire- ment Mind was established, it was pred- icated upon an actuarial structure which was sound. The amount of the contributions made, respectively, by the Government and by the employees, was adequate to sustain the fund. However, since the establish- ment of the fund, it has been increasing- ly weakened by various things which have been done by Congress. I have be- fore me a report of the hearings before the Subcommittee on Retirement of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice of the Senate. The hearing was con- ducted on August 14, 1963, and, I believe, on several days thereafter. At the hear- ing, Mr. Macy. of the Civil Service Com- mission, testified. He stated that as of the beginning of the fiscal year 1965? that would be the first of July of this year, yesterday?the obligations of the fund would be $49 billion, the money available would be $14 billion, and the unfounded liability would be $35 billion.. May we have order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. July 2 Mr. LAUSCHE. For the benefit of those who are listening, I should :ike to have order. Mr. RUSSELL. Would the bill in- crease the contributions to the fur d? Mr. LAUSCHE. It would not, but it changes the base upon which the retire- ment pay is to be calculated. Mr. RUSSELL. In other words, it in- creases the amount to be paid out, but does not do anything to replenish the fund. Is that correct? Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. The bill would increase the amount that would be paid out, but ;t would do nothing to fi:aance the increase in the obligation. Mr. RUSSELL. That is where the bil- lion and some odd dollars that the Sena- tor has referred to is involved. Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. The adoption of the increased pay would impose an added obligation on the fund of $1,250 million. No increased contributions are provided with which to finance the increased obligations. Mr. Macy testified that there are sev- eral reasons why the fund has become actuarially unsound. He said: The second factor has been periodic liber- alizations which have been made by Con- gress withcUt payment to cover-past service liability. These liberalizations are of four different types: Annuity increases for those already retired, such as those enactet_ last year. Pay increases for active employment, such as those enacted last year. These pay Increases have a future liability impact upon the annuity rate and the annuity fund. It is thus clear, Mr. President, that as we increase the annuities, and as we in- crease the pay, and as we bring cther persons within the coverage, we increase the burden of the obligations that are put on the fund. The consequence of these liberaliza- tions, in part, and the failure of the Gov- ernment to pay its share on a pay-as- you-go basis, have created this shoes:Mg situation: $49 billion of obligations, $14 billion of money available to pay taose obligations, and $35 billion of unfunded liabilities. With the passage of the bill the obli- gations would be increased by $1,250 mil- lion, without any financing of the obli- gation, as indicated by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL ]. Senators might ask me what I propose to do. Wien the retirement fund was originally established, the actuarial cal- culation was sound. The formula for establishina the base was that we s.aall take the average salary of the employee through his whole career. Later that formula was changed, and the forrrula that was adopted provided that we wculd take the 5 years of the highest salary in fixing the base. With that formula of 5 highest years, any one of us, at the end of 5 years, would have our lifetime an- nuity established on the basis of 5 years at $30,000 without any regard of the for- mer years that we served either at $22,500 or at $12,500. I have made a calculation. Let us as- sume that I have served 12 years at $22,500 a year. My annuity pay woild be $6,750 a year or $562.50 a month. That is on 12 years of service with a sal- ary of $22,500. If we raise the salaries to $30,000. and I have served 12 years, 7 of which was at Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 ? Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE 15307 $22,500 and 5 at $30,Q00, my retirement pay would be $9,000 a year, or $733 a month, that being $61 a month more. Under my formula, we would take the average pay received through the 12 years, 7 years at $22,500, and 5 years at $30,000, added together, and then estab- lishing what the average wage would be over the 12 years. Under my formula, the pension would be $7,187 a year. To recapitulate, under the existing formula, with a $22,500 a year salary, the Pension is $562.50 a month. Under the bill if it is passed, without my amend- ment, it would be $733 a month. If my amendment were adopted, it would be $718 a month. All I ask is that we should not count the 5 highest years, but the average of all the years of employment. My amendment applies not only to Senators, but also to every employee of the Government. To illustrate further, let us consider the civil service employee who has served 20 years?the first 10 years at $5,000, the next 5 years at $8,000, and the last 5 years at $15,000. His re- tirement pay under present law is cal- culated on the $15,000 a year salary, without regard for his service of 5 years at $5,000 and 5 years at $8,000. In addition, when he began at $5,000, he paid a premium on the basis of $5,000. In the next 5 years, at a salary of $8,000, the premium was based on the $8,000. In the last 5 years, when he was earn- ing $15,000, the premium was on the basis of $15,000. So it can readily be seen that the amount of the contribution made is not adequate to sustain the fund. I feel very keenly about this. I do so because I think it can be clearly demon- strated that the fund must go into bank- ruptcy eventually, unless Congress does something to remedy the wrong. I read further from Mr. Macy's statement: As I have already indicated, in 1965, the fund would be $14 billion; the unfunded liability, $35 billion. In 7 years the fund would be $17 billion; the unfunded liability, $41 billion. In 1975, the fund would be $16 billion. In other words, it would have fallen off in that period, and the unfunded liability would have grown to $49 billion from the present level of $35 billion. Mr. Macy goes on to state that by 1990 the fund would be broke. My ques- tion is: Can we tolerate that situation? We cannot. We should approach the problem on a realistic, sound economic basis. It is true that we would expect that the Government eventually would pay the $35 billion due now and probably the $49 billion that would be due at a later date; but if and when it does, those amounts will have to be paid out of the taxpayers' money. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 1 minute re- maining. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment would provide that a person who has been with the Govern- ment 25 or 30 years, who started at $1,500 a year, and who is now receiving $15,000, would have to go back and in- elude the years during whieh he was paid $1,500 and reach a general average of all the years. Is that correct? Mr. LAUSCHE. That is correct. Mr. JOHNSTON. Under the retire- ment system, it has always been the practice that when a person was em- ployed he had to sign for retirement benefits. When he did so, he knew how much he would have to pay into the fund, and he also knew how much the Government would pay in to match his contribution. He signed up in the sys- tem with the understanding that his retirement would be based on the aver- age of the 5 highest years' salary. That would be the basis of the computation of his retirement annuity. Is not that true? Mr. LAUSCHE. That is true; but the Senator's statement demonstrates the fallacy of the law as it is now written. The Senator admits that the retire- ment pay of the person who signed up when he was earning $1,500 a year and subsequently received $15,000 annually for his last 5 years would be predicated on the 5 years at $15,000, completely for- getting that for the previous years he was earning $1,500. Mr. JOHNSTON. With one proviso: Provided he had been drawing $15,000 annually for 5 years. Mr. LAUSCHE. That is correct; but I ask the Senator from South Carolina: What will become of the fund under the formula which he is urging? It is now growing constantly bigger. If the Sena- tor says it is not, then I shall read to him what Mr. Macy said about the sub- ject. Mr. JOHNSTON. Annually the fund has been growing. It now has approxi- mately $14.5 billion. Last year it was $13 billion. We were told years ago what would happen. The Civil Service Commission takes into consideration all employees and as- sumes that they will all remain with the Government for the full term. But all employees do not do that. At present, the turnover of Government employees is at the rate of 18 percent each year. When they leave the Government, what do they receive? They receive only the amount of money they contributed. The Federal contribution remains with the fund. Mr. LAUSCHE. Does the Senator from South Carolina claim that the fund, on the present basis of operation, will not be bankrupt, according to the words of Mr. Macy, in 1990? Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Macy appeared before our committee. The committee has before it a bill to reform the financ- ing of the retirement system that it will report to the Senate. It will be found that when the Government contributes to the fund, the contribution begins to draw interest. The Government borrows from the $14.5 billion in the fund and pays 3 percent interest, the lowest it pays anywhere in America. Mr. LAUSCHE. I can only say that I am shocked and cannot believe that a sound argument can be made to justify the horrible condition that exists in the retirement fund. No words can refute the facts. No words can refute what every actuary will say about the present status of the fund. If 2 years from now we again increase salaries, we shall further weaken the fund, unless we adopt a formula to pro- vide for the base of annuities being es- tablished on the average salary received throughout the years. I know I have used up my time. I have nothing further to say on the sub- ject. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the only reason why the fund is not sound now is that the Government has failed to pay into it its proper share over the years. If 20, 25, or 30 years ago the Gov- ernment had made its obligated contri- butions, the fund would be in sounder condition today. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield. Mr. CLARK. The question may be Irrelevant and immaterial; it may also be slightly unethical. But would not the result of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio be to reduce the pension of every Member of this body? Mr. LAUSCHE. No, it would not. It would not reduce the pension. It would allow the beneficiaries to receive the benefit of an increased pension without having in the past paid in a share of the premium adequate to sustain the fund. My proposal would be absolutely just. It would be based on the average salary over the whole career of a Senator or of an employee of the Senate. Mr. CLARK. I did not ask the Sena- tor from Ohio; I asked the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. JOHNSTON. There are Members of this body who have served 28 or 30 years, when Members' salaries were lower their annuities at retirement age would be reduced substantially by this amend- ment. They would have to do this down through the years in order to get the $12,000. Mr. LAUSCHE. I notice that the Sen- ator from Pennsylvania asked questions only of those who will answer according to his wishes, but that comment might not be agreed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc- GOVERN in the chair). Does the Sena- tor from South Carolina yield back the remainder of his time? Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. There have been three versions of the amendment. The first one that came in would have made Members of the Senate exclusive victims of a rather deep cut in their retirement benefits, leaving out the legislative employees and leaving out the Government workers. This amendment was tabled on the opening of debate on the bill. Today, we have a new amendment which applies to the system- wide governmental retirement system. Frankly, I know of no established retire- ment system by industry, or others, which does not relate retirement pay for years of service which the worker has accumulated under a retirement sys- tem to the salary at the time he retires. To do otherwise would be to bring Mem- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 15308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2 hers of the Senate back to the level of the $7,500 salary, for perhaps a fourth of their service, $10,000 for another fourth, and then perhaps up to $22,500. Today Members' salaries on which they pay 71/2 percent retirement benefits is $22,500, contrary to the impression left by my distinguished friend, the Sena- tor from Ohio, which I am sure he did not intend to create. We pay the 71/2 percent not on the $22.500, when the salary goes up, but on the $30,000. Those in the other grades would pay on their higher salaries. When we took this up in 1956, in order to be sure that we were not going to put in a lesser amount or too small an amount, we obtained an estimate from the Civil Service Commission as to the proper rate, and took the 5-year average. We were told we had to raise it from 6 to 71/2 percent?which we did. The distinguished Senator from Ohio will find that on November 1, 1956, in order to meet the 5-year average, we raised the assessments to 71/2 percent. By the same token, on Government employees, as their salaries have gone up, the percent has increased from the original rate of 21/2 percent per year which was in effect on August 1. 1920. to 31/2 percent which became effective on July 1, 1926, to 5 percent which became effective on July 1, 1942, to 6 percent which became effective on July 1, 1948, and to 61/2 percent which became effec- tive November 1, 1956. I have heard it explained time and time again, that the purpose is to let the employee pay half the retirement, in much the same established custom as social security, which was modeled after this program. The annual payment to the Commis- sion, as civil service retirement, has done better than that, because the employee has paid more than his half. Although there is a deficit in the systemwide re- serves on the entire civil service system, it is because the Government?in order to reach such political accommodations as "totaling" budgets in certain years? failed to put up, during those years. the portion that the Civil Service Commis- sion intended, planned, and had under program. Those funds should have been invested. So it has been the Govern- ment. and not the employees, that has been shortchanging the fund. The em- ployees have maintained their contribu- tions and have increased their contri- butions. To go back now and assent to pulling these men down to a 1920, a 1915, or a 1930 salary base, perhaps one-third of their employable time, and roll them back, rather than meet the salary which today?with inflation and the cost of living?the increase requires, would mean that 1.7 million civil service work- ers would go back, back, back, and would have their benefits greatly reduced. I am surprised that the Senator, who has always been a friend of the Govern- ment worker, would do this to all Fed- eral employees. If it was the original plan to do this to Senators and Repre- sentatives, we could perhaps stand it. It would be unfair?but we could stand it. But I do not believe it is the purpose to lower salaries back to the cost of living standard before World War II. which was low. But now, to roll them back and figure it in their base, means that the Government has not kept faith by putting its share of the money into the retirement fund. I believe that this is an unwise amendment which would cause a great deal of distress among Government em- ployees who have calculated for years on the basis of this high, 5-year average. Now the Senator from Ohio comes in and with one swoop. in 1 day, reverses what he had on the table. Mr. LAUSCHE. I am not reversing It at all. I have gone the full limit to be fair with all. I might answer the Senator from Okla- homa by saying that I am the friend of the worker because I wish this fund to be kept sound. Those who are opposing my proposal are urging a course of action which would bankrupt the fund and eventually- deprive every worker. Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator well knows, or should know, that every year the Appropriations Committee is putting back more of the money of the Federal contribution. Did the Senator from Ohio believe that the old base for the retirement sys- tem of Federal employees was going to be the employes contribution? Mr. LAUSCI-IE. Never. The initial objective was to have it equally big. Mr. MONRONEY. But the Govern- ment has not carried out its contract. Mr. LAUSCHE. It certainly has not paid into the fund. Mr. MONRONEY. That Is correct? that is why the fund is in the red. Mr. LAUSCHE. But today we are go- ing to put upon the Government a new obligation of $1,250 million, for which there has been no payment into the fund. Mr. MONRONEY. I do not believe that is going to freeze permanently all salaries in the system. I believe that there will always be a variation. When the worker increases his percentage to 71/2 percent, that is about as high PS any contributing employee can possibly go. Government workers are now Paying 61/2 percent. They are carrying their part of the load. If the congressional retire- ment to which the Senator has referred had been kept on a separate bookkeeping system, the Senator would find that since 1946 the fund collected more from the Members than was paid out. The annual contribution of Members Is $1,750,000. This does not include serv- ice credit, deposits, or voluntary contri- butions. Annuities paid out annually are $1,233,333. leaving an annual surplus on a cash basis of $916,000. This is the way our congressional re- tirement system has worked. We do not like to retire early. No Member likes to retire at the earliest possible date in the Senate. nor in the House. So. we find that, there are dozens of Members who serve long past the retirement-fund age, and continue to pay into the fund; and when they retire they draw back very much more than what they have been able to put in, without regard to the inierest rate. This amendment, I believe, would work great hardship on our Government em- ployees. It has not been carefully thought out. Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to the dis- tinguished Senator from West Virginia. Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the position so effec- tively advocated by the Senator from Oklahoma in opposition to the amend- ment proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE]. The Federal employee is in no way re- sponsible for the financial difficulties of the civil service retirement and dis- ability fund. Indeed, it is the Federal Government which has created the defi- cit in this fund. The employee, since the act of orivin in 1920, has contributed between 21,, percent, in the beginning, to 61,c2 percent of his gross salary to the retirement fund. It has been the Gov- ernment which has failed again and again to contribute adequate funds. The Government made a promise and it has failed to live up to that promise. Do we therefore enalize the loyal Federal em- ployee for Congress failure in breach of contract? I believe not, and I feel that the Members of the Senate will oaer- whelmingly defeat the pending amendment. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio speaks of Members of this Chamber who make $22,500 a year. I speak in belaalf of 378,000 loyal workers in the Post Of- fice Department who carry our mail and who earn a salary of slightly more than $5,000 a year. I might be willing to accept the SE na- tor 's suggestion if the only persons in- volved were the Senator from Ohio and myself. We have, however, promised the Federal employees, the overwhelm- ing majority of whom are in the lower grades of the Classification Act and the postal schedule, and it Is these people we would hurt. It is these citizens who have earned a retirement based on "high 5" average and multiplied by their years of service. I can never support a proposal to tell a clerk or stenographer or a letter car- rier that after 25 or 30 or 40 years of toil, we will not pay that employee what we promised more than 40 years ago that we would pay. Mr. MONRONEY. The argument of the Senato: from West Virginia is valid. His conviction in this matter is appreciated. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President I should like to address a question, through the Senator from Oklahoma, to the Senator from Ohio. Does this apply to those presently on the rolls? Mr. MONRONEY. I do not believe the amendment is clear. Mr. MORTON. To those presently on the retirement rolls. Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator has not provided for reducing those already on pension. It does not say. Mr. MORTON. The point I wish to make is that a lady retired from my office after 17 years. She is retired row, and her pension is set, based on her highest 5 years of service. I have an- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 - Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15309 other employee who expects to retire, perhaps 3 years from now. Will those two employees be treated differently? Mr. LAUSCHE. As to the one retired, her pay is fixed. It would not affect her at all. Mr. MORTON. The first one was the beneficiary of the 5 highest years. Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes?over 5 years. Mr. MORTON. She received re- tirement based on the highest 5 years. Should I treat someone differently from one who has worked for me and my predecessor, who has been on Capitol Hill since 1930, and give preferential treat- ment to someone who has worked for me, say, 15 years? The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has now expired. Mr. LAUSCHE. Let the Chair put the question. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I yield time on the bill to the Senator from Ohio. Mr. LAUSCHE, Let me read what Macy said: We find that in 7 years by 1972, the outgo in the form of benefit payments under the retirement act will exceed the income. From that date on, this unfavorable situation con- tinues to add to the fund balance so that in 25 years, by 1990, the retirement fund balance is zero. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this appears to be many years ahead, but we feel as the responsible administrators of this fund that we must look that far ahead. We are going to continue on the way we are going, and run into this situa- tion. Or we are going to meet the prob- lem head on now. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma will yield fur- ther, let me point out that provided Sen- ators stand up and appropriate what they are supposed to appropriate to this fund, that contingency will not come about. What disturbs me is that some- one who retired last year who worked for me or for some other Senator, or anyone on Capitol Hill, would be treated in one way under the amendment of the Senator, and persons who plan to retire in 2 or 3 or 4 years from now, or next year, will be treated in an entirely dif- ferent way. Mr. LAUSCHE. Unless we find a remedy, the employee of the Senator who retires after working for 30 years will be in trouble. This employee of the Senator who retires, if she lives for 30 years, will be in trouble. But I do not suppose she will live that long. Mr. MORTON. That is not because she worked for me. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the Senator brought up a very important point. It would not be so effective as to Members of Congress. But, historically the Government employees off Capitol Hill have enjoyed the advantage of hav- ing the highest 5-year count for their retirement benefits. Suddenly, the Lausche amendment provides that peo- ple who retire subsequently will be sub- ject to a different retirement pay. Those who come along after the passage of this amendment would be cut back to the Senator's example. of the $5,000 a year No. 133-9 clerk and the $2,000 a year clerk for 5 years. That would affect the average. Perhaps the person would be receiving a salary of $10,000 or $15,000 a year when he retired, but he would be entitled to only a third of the pay in the last 5 years that can be credited to his retirement. I think it is a very cruel system to put into effect. It is very unwise. It is self- defeating. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the retirement system at best does not pro- vide too large an annuity or pension to the pensioner. The pensioners on Gov- ernment pensions, today, have a very dif- ficult time, in many instances, meeting their expenses. It is very difficult for a person who is nearing $8,000, $7,000, $10,000, or $6,000 a year?a family per- son, even if a second person in the fam- ily works?to save up anything, except to possibly pay for a home to put Federal employees on two standards, one group whose retirement is based on the average of the last 5 years' earnings, and the other group on a different average would, I say most respectfully, not be proper. I have not had the experience that the Senator from Ohio has in this matter. But I served on the teachers' retirement fund in my city, the municipal em- ployees' retirement fund and the po- lice and firemen's retirement fund. The only answer is to appropriate the money that we are obliged to appropriate. What we did in most instances, and what Congress has done; namely, to take out a certain percentage of the worker's pay. Then Congress "ta;kes it on the lam" and does not put up the money. If we do that, of course, the problem will not be solved. The only way to solve it is to have Congress per- form its duty and provide its share of the funds. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I point out that the amount of raise that the workers will receive, with the 61/2 percent that they will be paying in addi- tion, will bring in something like $32 or $33 additional to the fund. It will stay In there for many years at 4 percent in- terest to help pay for this program. But the Government must put up its share, and be fair. To use the Government's failure as an excuse to tear down the amount that the workers will receive in 20 or 30 years, expecting and believing that they would receive it, I think, is a cruel system. Mr. LAUSCHE. May I have 2 min- utes? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from Ohio has pointed out that many an- nuitants are not in a position t