GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1964

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• 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
• Content Type: OPEN

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 to maintain
themselves the way they expected when
they went on retirement.