FEDERAL SALARY COMPARABILITY ACT OF 1969

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 46
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: September 9, 1969
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : - 00400070004-4
ILL
91ST CONGRESS t HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES j REroRT
1st Session I No. 91-480
SEPTEMBER 9, 1969.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DULSKI, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 13000]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 13000) to implement the Federal employee
pay comparability system, to establish a Federal Employee Salary
Commission and a Board of Arbitration, and for other purposes, hav-
ing considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof
the matter that appears in the reported bill in italic type.
PURPOSE
There are two basic purposes to this bill:
1. The setting up of a permanent method of adjusting the pay
of Federal employees who are paid under one of the four statutory
pay schedules (General Schedule, Postal Field Service Schedules,
Foreign Service Schedules, and the schedules relating to physi-
cians, dentists, and nurses in the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration).
2. The elimination of the long-standing inequity requiring
postal employees to serve 21 years before reaching maximum
pay for their work. This legislation will allow the vast majority
of postal employees to reach the top pay step in 8 years instead
of the present 21 years.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved Fqr a UBFUT/a1 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
In addition, this legislation makes other changes of lesser importance
which concern themselves with compensation of Federal employees
under special circumstances.
BACKGROUND FOR A PERMANENT PAY SYSTEM
With the passage in December 1967, of the Federal Salary Act of
1967, a precedent was set. For the first time, Federal salaries of em-
ployees under the four statutory pay systems were to be adjusted
automatically in 1968 and 1969. his meant that Congress would not
have to become intimately involved in the annual squabble over the
question of raising Federal employees' pay. Instead, Congress reviewed
the decisions reached by the Hxecutive and maintained overall control
of the process.
The Federal Salary Act of 1967 provided that the President would
adjust salaries in 1968 and 1969 so that all Federal employees would
have full comparability with private industry pay rates by July 1969.
At the same time, the 1967 act was to be a test. The procedures and
mechanisms used would be revciwed and analyzed by the Congress
so that corrections could be made in any future legislation.
The effectiveness of this legislation over the 2-year period would
give Congress valuable and needed information as to the necessity for
proceeding in this direction. Accordingly, during this period, the
concerned departments in the executive branch and the Compensation
Subcuunnaittee reviewed this process.
In 19GS, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission testified
that-
There is need for continuing authority to permit
adjustments of salaries in the four statutory system [w-hilel
at the same time, providing for essential congressional
reviews at appropriate intervals.
In 1969, the newly appointed Chairman of the Civil Service Com-
mission said that---
The ideal role of Congress in Federal salary administra-
tion is to set the. policy and principles for the executive branch
to follow and to establish it proper system for congressional
review of the actions taken.
It is clear that. there is widespread agreement for some method
that will allow for annual review and adjustments of the pay rates for
Federal eni ployee. The administration wants it, the Federal employees
need it, and this Congress will have an opportunity to pass it.
After 2 years or intensive studies, hearings and consultations with
hundreds of organizations, individuals, and representatives from the
executive, the committee made the following deteruiiiiat.ions:
1. The bet way to set pay on it permanent basis would be to
set up it Federal Employee Salary Commission, composed of
executive branch and employee representatives, with the oppor-
tunity for arbitration if conflicts developed.
2. It was important that, Congress participate in this area,
therefore, an arbitration board would have important repre-
sentation on it by 'Members of the House and Senate.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SALARY COMMISSION
Given these two basic conclusions, the committee noted that a key,
ingredient was the makeup of the Salary Commission and the faith
that would reside in the members of the Commission by all those
affected.
It is vital that Congress continue its primary role of setting the
policy and continuing review of the Salary Commission. The Congress
has set the policy in the Salary Acts of 1962, 1967 and in the first
section of this legislation. The Salary Commission will make the
studies, and draw the salary schedules with rates of pay conforming
to the policy guidelines of the. Congress. This is the purpose of the
Commission-to set the rates of pay so they conform to the policy
directives of the Congress. Thus, the role of the Salary Commission
is to fulfill the policy outlined by the Congress, which will continue
to review and revise, if necessary, such policy.
The Salary Commission is composed of four representatives of the
executive branch and four representatives of employee organizations.
For purposes of voting, however, the employee groups have three
votes. Thus, the executive branch has a voting majority. It is the
conviction of the committee that the executive branch should have
the necessary votes to implement the personnel policy outlined by
the Congress. By following the policy outlined in the law and by im-
plementing a fair and unbiased program for determining the annual
pay adjustments, the executive will be able to exercise its judgments
through its majority on the Salary Commission.
If, on the other hand, there is capricious and arbitrary behavior on
the part of the executive branch in the implementation of this pro-
gram, there will be recourse through the Board of Arbitration for the
aggrieved employees. It is the potential for such problems, based on the
last 2 years experience, that called for the creation of the Board of
Arbitration.
It was apparent from the testimony presented to the committee,
during the period 1967-69 that one basic criticism overwhelmed all
others. The semiautomatic adjustments that were effected in 1968
and 1969 were based on a survey done by the Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics under the control of the Civil Service Commission and the
Bureau of the Budget. All of the employee representatives testifying,
before the Compensation Subcommittee were unanimous in their criti-
cisms of the premises, structure and interpretation of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Survey.
It was made clear that the criticisms were not directed toward the.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, but rather to the bias that were built into;
the survey by the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of the
Budget. The criticisms pointed out that Federal employees were not
being paid amounts comparable to their private enterprise counter
parts, as was required under the Federal Salary Act of 1967.
The evidence presented by all Federal employee representatives,
both in 1968 and 1969 was persuasive and raised such serious questions.
that the committee believes their criticism may be justified.. However,
this committee does not have to pass judgment on this matter because
such actions are unlikely to happen under the new procedures to be
followed by the Federal Employee Salary Commission.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/341 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
Accordingly, the committee intends that this legislation correct
such criticism by placing, on the Salary Commission, representatives
of the employees along with representatives from the executive branch.
In this way, the employees will know exactly how the survey will be
structured, what criteria will be applied, and what procedures win be
followed.
It is felt that the jurisdiction of the Commission will include overall
control of the entire process of deciding the structure of the annual
survey of private industry and that the survey will reflect large,
unionized, industrial centers which are comparable to the Federal
Government as a large employer.
Another concern of the committee is the frequent position of the
executive branch that the congressional policy of comparability be
implemented only when a budget surplus permits. The Federal em-
ployee is always the first to suffer the effects of budget limitations.
While it is necessary to prevent unwarranted increases in personnel,
it is also felt that, adequate compensation is necessary to maintain
a high level of competency among the Federal Establishment. There-
fore, the committee believes that regular adjustments of Federal
salaries should be considered as an automatic cost of Government,
similar to the cost of interest on the national debt, and that such
adjustments should not be considered as a departmental, line item,
adjustment, or as an act of generosity in time of budget balance.
The committee is also concerned that. the pay schedules provide the
necessary incentives for career development among the Federal em-
ployees. Therefore, it believes that the Commission should concern
itself with such factors as the following when devising new pay sched-
ules for the Federal emplo ee:
(a) A review of the difference between the minimum rates in ad-
jacent grades to ascertain if there is a large enough grade differential
for proper incentive.
(b) The possibility that a broader range of rates within each grade
may be called for. It may be necessary that the difference between
the minimum and maximum rate within each grade be increased to
provide for greater incentive.
The above recommendations are not inclusive and many others can
certainly be considered by the Salary Commission in their delibera-
tions.
BOARD OF ARBITRATION
If disagreement arises over the decision of the Salary Commission
on the adjustments of the rates of pay for Federal employees, theBoard
of Arbitration will be called upon to act. This Board, composed of four
Members of Congress (two each from the House and Senate), one
representative each of the executive and the employees, and an
impartial chairman selected by the other six, will have the authority
to review the operation of the Salary Commission, so as to ascertain
the procedures that were followed in reaching the decision under
arbitration. The Board will decide whether or not the decision of the
Salary Commission is in agreement with the policy directives in the
law and if they are found wanting, will make the necessary changes.
In reviewing its decision, the Board may hold hearings, invite any
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : ~IA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
interested parties to testify, and shall do whatever it can to allow a
broad range of opinions to be heard. The committee is especially
concerned that the Board of Arbitration allow evidence to be presented
by the group(s) bringing the issue to arbitration so as to demonstrate
the validity of their position.
Similarly, the Board shall hear from the executive branch concerned
that the recommendations be accepted.
It is not necessary that all recommendations of the Salary Com-
mission be brought to arbitration. In any one annual report, there will
be four recommendations corresponding to the four statutory pay
schedules. Any one or combination of the four may be brought to
arbitration by a concerned group.
ACCELERATION OF STEP INCREASES FOR POSTAL WORKERS
One of the myriad problems facing the Post Office Department is
the high turn-over rate of its employees. In 1967-68 the separation
rate was approximately 45 percent. In a comparable period for all of
Government, the separation rate was 23 percent.
The reasons for this turnover are many and varied. Some of the more
important include the level of pay and the iniquitous system of ad-
vancement which requires a postal employee to remain in the service
for over 20 years before he reaches the top for his position.
The pay of the postal employee, while it has increased substantially
in the past few years, is still below the national standard.
At the present time, according to the statistics published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the best the postal employee can hope
for, after 21 years of service, is $1,864 less than the minimum stand-
ard for a moderate standard of living. By moderate, the BLS means
that the family may own a 2-year-old car and the father in the family
may buy a new Burt every 4 years. No allowance is made for savings
nor for credit charges, even though most families in this category buy
on credit.
Even worse, the present midrange of the postal employee schedule
at PFS 5, step 4, is but $111 more than the standard set by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for a low standard of living It is the strong
feeling of this committee that these problems need to be overcome and
overcome fast.
Therefore, in order to create new incentives in the postal recruit-
ment and retention program; in order to allow the full-fledged postal
employee to enjoy the fruits of this labor within a reasonable time
period; and to increase the ability of the postal employee to maintain
his family at a reasonable standard of living, the committee has
recommended the following:
1. The present system of instep promotion that requires 21
years (minimum) for a postal employee to reach the top step in
his grade will be reduced to 8 years.
2. As the first step in this process of reducing the amount of
time required to become a full-fledged postal employee, all lower
grade employees (PFS 1-11) are given a two-step advancement
effective October 1, 1969. Higher level employees (PFS-12 and
above) will be given earned step advancement on July 1, 1970,
as their first step in the acceleration program.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/3,1 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
It is important to remember that the problems facing the. postal
employee in terms of career advancement, are limited and unique. In
contratst to all other Federal agencies, over 71 percent of the postal
employees are locked into one grade level. The distribution clerks and
the letter carriers, the backbone of the Post Office Department, must
spend their entire careers in P FS,-.5), Thus, the only meaningful career
advancement open to them is through the within-grade stop increase
program. Thus, it is vital that the postal employee know that he, will
be able to move up the ladder rapidly and be able to earn enough
money to care for his family responsibilities. It is patently unfair to
have a M R11 work more than 10 years in one level, with no hope of
advancement, and not be making the maximum amount for the same
amount of work.
This incentive program is designed to help the postal employee
because of his unique situation. It is not a program which creates an
unfair advantage over other Federal employees. Most other employees
are offered ample opportunity to move into other, more skilled
occupations within the Federal service as their skills increase. The
recent report by the Civil Service Commission, Grade Trend of
Federal Civilian Employment (June 1969), pointed out that the
definite trend among Federal employees is on the upgrade. In fact,
the report clearly stated that the "principal reductions in new hiring
[a moos General Schedule en ployecs] occurred at the basic entry
grades of GS -1, 2, 3, and 5." 'these are precisely the areas, especially
GS-5. where the postal employees are situated. Thus, where the
problem is greatest among postal employees, it is decreasing among
all others.
It is the intent of this committee that the Federal Employee
Salary Commission review this entire area and maintain patterns
that are consistent with the policy of comparability between private
industry and within the Federal Government for like work.
According to the Post Office Department, the estimated cost of
this two-step increase which is effective in October 1969, will be
$244 million for fiscal year 1970. While any estimates for the total
accelerated program cannot be precise, the Post Office Department
estimates that the ultimate cost, after S years, would be $7S0 million.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
In addition to the two main provisions of this legislation, the com-
mittee has considered and approved three nonrelateditenls concerning
specific problem areas affecting Federal employees.
1. Section 7 would authorize the payment of an allowance,
not to exceed $10 per day, to defray the commuting expenses of
civilimoi employees of executive departments and independent
establishments assigned to duty at remote worksites. This section
is identical to H.R. 12881, which passed the House unanimously
during the 90th Congress.
2. Section S provides for the payment of an allowance to
employees in the Corps of Engineers engaged in floating plant
operations on vessels when the employees are prevented from
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 :7CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
boarding the vessels under circumstances beyond their control,
such as hazardous weather conditions or while the vessel is
in a shipyard for repairs. This section is identical to H.R. 7406,
which was reported favorably by the committee during the 90th
Congress.
3. Section 6 removes an. inequity from existing law to permit
the payment of premium compensation for certain employees
for Sunday, night, holiday and overtime pay. The major groups
affected include border patrolmen, deputy U.S. marshals,
customs and internal revenue personnel, and members of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The administration strongly en-
dorses this legislation.
The Compensation Subcommittee also heard testimony concernin
the implementation, by the Department of Defense, of Public Law
89-391, amending the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay
and Personnel Practices Act, now 20 U.S.C. 901-907. It was dis-
closed that administrative practice in the Department of Defense
results in teachers of overseas dependent children being paid on
salary schedules which are 1 year out of date at the time of
implementation.
Public Law 89-391 (20 U.S.C. 902(a)) provides that teachers em-
ployed by the Department of Defense for schools for overseas depend-
ent children are to be paid "at rates equal to the average of the range
of rates of basic competence for similar positions of a comparable
level of duties and responsibilities in urban school jurisdictions in
the United States of 100,000 or more population."
The Department of Defense, however, bases its September salary
schedule on rates paid in the comparable districts on the previous
December, rather than on the actual rate paid in accordance with
salary schedules negotiated by the comparable school districts, usually
in the spring, to be effective the following September.
As an example, the salary offered beginning teachers in comparable
districts for the school year beginning September 1969 is $6,590. The
Department of Defense schedule provides only $6,120. The subcom-
mittee sees no flaw in the basic legislation, but rather in the failure
of the Department of Defense to properly implement it.
A further problem results from the failure of the Department of
Defense to grant prior service credit to experienced teachers at the
time of initial employment. For the comparable school districts the
average practice is to give teachers up to 7 years credit for prior
service of 7 years or more. In the DOD schools, all teachers, regardless
of years of experience, receive credit on the salary schedule for only
2 years of prior service. This practice discriminates against experi-
enced and more mature teachers and contravenes Public Law 89-391,
which provides for basic compensation at rates equal to the average
of the range of rates of basic compensation for similar positions of a
comparable level of duties and responsibilities.
The committee believes the Department of Defense should correct
these inequities through administrative action.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/34 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
EWPLANATION OF THE BILL BY SECTIONS
The first section of the bill provides that the act may be cited as
the Federal Salary Comparability Act of 1969.
Section 2 rewrites sections 5301 and 5302 of title 5, United States
Code, relating to the congressional policy and the procedure for the
pay comparability- system for the Federal statutory pay systems.
Section 5301(a) sets forth the policy of the Congress that rates of
pay for Federal salaried employees shall continue to be based on the
principle that there be equal pay under each pay system for substan-
tially equal work, that pay distinctions be maintained in keeping with
work distinctions, and that the rates of pay shall be comparable, on a
national basis, with private enterprise rates of pay for the same levels
of work.
There are two changes in this congressional policy. The words "on
a national basis" are included in order to remove any possible inter-
pretation that these provisions would permit the fixing of rates of
pay under this policy on an area wage basis. It is intended that the
rates of pay for employees covered by these provisions shall continue
to be fixed on a national basis.
The second change is the elimination of the specific requirement
that the pay systems "be interrelated." This language was used
under the old system as the basis for the linkage between the pay
systems-for example, GS-5, is linked to PFS-5. The language was
removed in order to give the Commission complete discretion in
prescribing the rates of pay under each pay schedule within the policy
guidelines of section 5301(a). It may be that the Commission would
want to continue some form of linkage, but it should be on a com-
parability basis.
It is expected that under these provisions there will be comparable
pay between and among the various pay systems when related matters
affecting pay are similar.
A clerk in the postal system doing the same work as a clerk in the
general schedule system should get the same pa r. An employee in the
general schedule system doing the same work as an employee in
the Foreign Service system should get the same pay. The nurse in
the Public Health Service under the general schedule doing the same
work as a nurse in the Department of Medicine and Surgery in the
Veterans' Administration should get the same pay.
However, in determining whether the pay is the sauce, all elements
affecting that pay under the several systems, such as opportunities
for advancement, premium pay, and within-step progression, should
be considered. This is what the committee believes should be compara-
bilitv within and between the Federal pay systems.
All Federal employees working under the pay systems covered by
this legislation should receive, as nearly as practicable, the identical
pay for the identical work.
As indicated above, there are many elements that affect compara-
bility of pay such as opportunity for advancement, premium pay, or
within-grade step advancement requirements of the various pay
systems. The committee expects the owlnussion to evaluate and con-
sider all matters that nnay- affect comparability of pay within and
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : PIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
between the systems. If changes in legislation are needed in any
particular areas to achieve such comparability, it is expected that the
Commission will make such recommendations as authorized by
section 5302(c)(5).
Section 5301(b) identifies the pay systems covered by this legislation
and requires that the rates of pay for the systems be adjusted annually
in accordance with the policy set forth in subsection (a) and the pro-
cedures prescribed by section 5302 of title 5, United States Code, as
amended by this act.
The employees covered by this legislation are general. schedule
employees under 5 U.S.C. 5332; postal field service employees under
part III of title 39, United States Code; staff officers and employees
in the Foreign Service of the United States covered by 22 U.S.C. 867
and 870; and physicians, dentists, and nurses in the department of
Medicine and Surgery, Veterans' Administration, covered by 38
U.S.C. 4107.
Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the new section 5302 establish
a Federal Employees Salary Commission, and prescribe the functions
for the Commission.
The Commission will be composed of four members representing
the executive branch, four members representing employee organiza-
tions, and three associate members representing employee organiza
tions other than organizations having members on the Commission.
For voting purposes, however, the employee groups have only three
votes. Thus, the executive branch, having four members, will have the
voting majority to implement the personnel policies outlined for the
Commission. The associate members will not have a vote, but shall be
entitled to attend all meetings and be heard by the Commission on all
matters.
The primary function of the Commission is to prescribe, and revise
from time-to-time, the comparability pay survey to be performed
annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which will develop the
valid comparisons of rates of pay for Federal employees with the rates
of pay for the same levels of work of private industry. The Commission
is required to use the data disclosed by the comparability pay survey,
and prepare annually a comparative statement of the rates of pay for
employees covered by this system and the rates of pay for the same
levels of work in private industry. The Commission is required to
determine and prescribe the exact national rates of pay for the employ-
ees as may be necessary to effect the policy set forth in section 5301(a)
of title 5, United States Code.
The functions of the Commission referred to above are now per-
formed by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Chairman
of the Civil Service Commission as the agents of the President, in
accordance with the existing provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5302. This dele-
gation of authority is contained in Executive Order Nos. 11073 and
11173. Hereafter, these functions will be performed by the Commis-
Sion.
The Commission also is required (sec. 5302(c) (4)) to review
annually the comparability of the rates of pay and step increase
policies within and between the various pay systems for employees
subject to the provisions of this section, taking into consideration
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/1 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
such matters as the differing length of service requirements for step
increases, the different number of withilt-step increases, the fact that
there may be different, rates of pity under the different, pay systems for
the same type of work, and the fact that a supervisor uiuler one pay
system frequently receives a lower rate of pay than some of the ean-
ployeea whom he supervises.
Tile Commission also is required (sec. 5302(c) (5)) to prepare and
submit annually to the Congress a report- settitig forth the comparison
of the rates of pay; the exact- national rates of pay for each of the
salary systems governed by this legislation; and such recommendations
as they may deem necessary-, for changes in legislation, in order to
effect full comparability of pay within and between the various pay
systems.
The Commission is required to seek and give full recognition to the
views of employee organizations in connection with their deliberations
and determinations.
Subsection (e) sets forth the procedure permitting a member of the
Commission to seek arbitration when he permitting that the rates of
pay proposed by the Commission applicable to "the appropriate pay
system" are not in conformity with the comparability policies set
forth in section 5301(a). In the case of members of the Commission
representing the executive branch, the appropriate pay system could
include any one of the pay systems, but in the case of a member of
the Commission representing an employee organization, the appro-
priate pay system would be only the pity- system or systems which
apply to members of Lite organization. 'lien a request for arbitration
is made, the Commission is required to submit the proposed rates to
the Board of Arbitration not Inter than February 1 following the date
of such determination.
Subsection (f) establishes the Federal Employees Board of Arbitra-
tion to consider the rates of pity submitted to it. by the Commission
when a determination is made under subsection (c) that the proposed
rates do not conform with Lite pay comparability policy.
The Commission is composed of four Members of (;one ess, two
from the Senate and two from the House, one from the executive
branch, designated by Lite Chairman of the Civil Service Coum.mission,
one from the employee organizations, and a chairman designated by
the other members from the membership of the American Arbitration
Association. The voting majority of the Board will rest with the
Members of Congress.
The Board will have Lite sole function of determining whether the
proposed rates of pay submitted to it do or do not conform with the
cornparabilit-y policy. If the Board determines that the rates of pay
do lint so conform, the Board shall advise the Cotnrnission of its
decision, the reason for the decision, and prescribe such rates of pay
as the Board deteriines are necessary to conform xvith the com-
pa-rability policy.
Subsection (g) sets forth the procedure for the Commission to
submit the proposed rates of pay to the Congress. The rates proposed
by the Commission, if finalized, are to be submitted to the Congress
by February 1 each year, starting in 1970, and in those case., where
submission is made to the Board, immediately upon receipt of the
final and conclusive decision of the Board.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/3111 CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
Subsection (h) (1) provides that the rates of pay submitted to the
Congress shall become effective at the beginning of the first pay
period which begins on or after the first day of the year in which
such rates of pay are submitted, but only to the extent that, within
30 days after such rates of pay are submitted, the Congress has not
enacted legislation, or neither House of Congress has adopted a
resolution specifically disapproving, all or part of such recommenda-
tions.
Under subsection (h) (2) the recommendations of the Commission
may be made operative on a date earlier than such date after the
first of the year in which rates are submitted.
Subsection (h) (3), (4), and (5) permit the granting of retroactive
salary increases to correspond to increases initiated by the Commission,
effective in January each year, for employees whose rates of pay or
salary are normally set by administrative action pursuant to law.
These are the usual provisions included in salary legislation without
which administrative rates of pay may not be fixed retroactively
effective. These provisions do not apply to rates fixed in accordance.
with prevailing rates or practices, nor do they affect any authority
in existing law to fix compensation or salary by administrative action.
Subsections (i) through (1) contain the usual provisions for the
administration of a commission or a board, such as are established
by this section.
Authority is given for an allowance of travel expenses for each
ch associate member of the Commission and for each
member and e_-T,
member of the Board, including per diem, and for the payment to
each member or associate member who is not an employee or a
Member of Congress, a daily rate of pay equal to the per diem equiva-
lent to the maximum rate of basic pay of the General Schedule
for each day the member or associate member is engaged in the.
performance of services for the Commission or the Board, except
that the member from the American Arbitration Association may be
paid the usual fees.
Provisions are made under subsection (j) for the Commission and
the Board to appoint the necessary personnel and an executive
director at a rate of basic pay provided for level V of the Executive
Schedule, and to obtain personnel from other Government agencies
on a reimbursable basis. The Administrator of General Services is
required under subsection (1) to furnish administrative support.
Subsection (m) provides that any rates of pay which become
effective as a result of action by the Commission shall modify, super-
cede, or render inapplicable prior provision's of law or prior recom-
mendations and adjustments which have the effect of law.
Under subsection (n) the rates of pay which become effective are
authorized to be printed in the Statutes at Large, the Federal Register,.
and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Subsection (o) makes it clear that increases in rates of pay which
become effective under these provisions are not an equivalent increase
for step increase purposes under either 5 U.S.C. 5335 in the case of
General Schedule employees, or 39 U.S.C. 3552 in the case of postal
field service employees.
Subsection (p) authorizes the President to prescribe conversion
rules for the initial adjustment of rates of pay that may become
effective under the provisions of this section.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31,r CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
Subsection (q) authorizes increases to be granted, retroactively
effective, in the judicial branch, and by the Secretary of Agriculture,
with respect to Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation County
Committee employees, by amounts which are equal insofar as prac-
ticable to the increases of rates of pay which become effective under
the (provisions of this section.
Section 3 of the bill makes the necessary technical ad~ustnients in
the table of contents of subchapter I of chapter 53 of title 5 of the
United States Code to conform with the adjustments made in the
heading of section 5302 of title 5 by section 2 of the bill.
Section 4 of the bill rewrites susection (a) of section 3552 of title
39, United States Code, to reduce the within-grade waiting period
for advancement, to steps 2 through 7, of employees subject to the
Postal Field Service Schedule or the Rural Carrier Schedule, from 52
calendar weeks to 26 calendar weeks, and the period for such employees
in steps 8 and above from 156 calendar weeks to 52 calendar weeks.
This section will become effective on July 1, 1970, under section 9 of
the bill,
Subsection (a) of section 5 of the bill provides that each employee
in levels I through 11 of the Postal Field Service Schedule and each
employee under the Rural Carrier Schedule shall be advanced the
equivalent of two within-level steps. Each employee who is in either
of the two top steps of his level shall receive basic compensation at a
rate equal to his rate of basic compensation plus the amount of two
step increases of his level. This provision becomes effective under
section 9 on the first day of the fast pay period which begins on or
after October 1, 1969.
Subsection (a) also provides that changes in levels or steps which
would otherwise occur on the effective date shall be deemed to have
occurred prior to the adjustments. It also provides that an employee
who receives such en adjustment shall commence a new full waiting
period for further step increase purposes under 39 United States
Code 3552(a), on the first day of the first pay eriocl which begins
after July 1, 1970, and shall not receive credit for any of the inter-
vening period between October 1969, and July 1970, for step in-
cre&e purposes.
Subsection (b) of section 5 provides a special conversion rule for
the initial application to employees in levels 12 or above of the new
within-grade waiting periods provided by section 4 of the bill, which
becomes effective in July 1970. These employees will be credited for
satisfactory service performed since their last step increase prior to
the effective date (July 1970) in an amount not in excess of the serv-
ice required by the new provisions for a one-step increase applicable
to the step category of the employee. The credit for service under
this section will offset in part the exclusion of these employees from
the two-step increase authorized for employees in levels 1 through
11 by section 5 of the bill.
Subsection (e) of section 5 is intended to maintain the junior-senior
relationship for employees in levels 12 and above who will not receive
the two-step increase under this section. This subsection will require
the Postmaster General to advance each employee in level 12 when-
ever an employee in the same post office who received the two-step
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/313 CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
increase is promoted to the same level and is junior with respect to
total postal service. The advancement shall be to the highest step
which is held by any such junior employee. The usual savings provi-
sions are included so that the senior employee will not lose time for
step increase purposes because of the junior-senior advancement
requirements of this section.
Section 6 amends section 5545 (c) (2) of title 5, United States Code,
relating to premium pay for administratively uncontrollable work.
Existing law authorizes the head of an agency to grant additional
compensation on an annual basis to employees who perform substan-
tial amounts of irregular, unscheduled overtime duty and duty at
night, on Sundays, and on holidays. This authority is applicable only
where the nature of the employment is such that the employee is
generally responsible for recognizing, without supervision, circum-
stances that require him to remain on duty. The annual rate of addi-
tional pay may not be less than 10 percent, nor more than 25 percent,
of that part of the employee's base pay that does not exceed the mini-
mum rate for GS-10. No other premium pay may be granted to these
employees except for regularly scheduled overtime duty.
In some occupations where employees are being paid additional
annual premium rates under this authority, the operations must be
carried on around the clock 7 days a week. This is especially true in
the case of border patrolmen, deputy U.S. marshals, and certain
Customs and Internal Revenue personnel, where the employees have
regularly scheduled tours of duty that include Sunday, night, and
holiday work as a part of the basic 40-hour workweek.
Under the present law, they do not receive any form of premium
pay for this duty while most other Federal employees are paid a 25-
percent differential for regularly scheduled, nonovertime Sunday work
(5 U.S.C. 5546(a)); a 10-percent differential for regularly scheduled
night duty (5 U.S.C. 5545(a)): and doubletime for work on a holiday
(5 U.S.C. 5546(b)). They do receive the same premium compensation
as other employees for regularly scheduled overtime duty.
The amendment to section 5545(c)(2) provides that the additional
annual pay under this authority will compensate employees only for
irregular, unscheduled overtime duty. Consequently, the other ap-
plicable premium rates will be paid for regularly scheduled Sunday,
night, and overtime duty and for duty on holidays.
Section 7(a) of the bill rewrites section 5942 of title 5, United States
Code, to remove the references to specific remote worksites at which
a daily commuting allowance will be paid, and to provide general
legislation authorizing the payment of a commuting allowance for
travel to remote worksites.
The new provisions of section 5942 entitle an employee of an execu-
tive department or independent establishment who is assigned to duty,
other than an employee on temporary duty, at a remote worksite, to
an allowance of not to exceed $10 a day. The allowance is to be paid
under regulations prescribed by the President, establishing the rates
at which the allowance will be paid, and defining and designating those
sites, areas, and groups of positions to which the rates apply. The site
must be so remote from the nearest established communities or suitable
places of residence as to require an appreciable amount of expense,
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
14
hnu?dship, and inconvenience on the part of the employee in com-
muting to and from his residence and the worksite. The provisions
of this section do not apply to Government, corporations by reason of
the use of the defined terms, "executive department" or "independent
establishment," which do not include Government corporations.
Section 5942 specifically provides that, the allowance authorized by
this section, may be paid notwithstanding the provisions of section
55314 of title 5, United States Code, in order to overcome the require-
ment of section 55536, for a specific appropriation for the payment of
the allowance.
Section 7 (b) of the bill is it savings clause, to permit the continuation
of the payment of the allowance authorized by the existing provisions
of title 5. United States Code, section 5042 for employees on one of the
California offshore. islands, or at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Nevada test site, including the Nuclear Rocket Development Station,
until regulations by the President are issued under the new provisions
enacted by this legislation.
Section 7(c) of the bill makes the necessary technical adjustments
in the table of contents of subchapter IV of chapter 59 of title 5,
United States Code, to conform with the change in heading of section
5942, as amended by subsection (a) of the first section.
Section 8 of the hill adds a new section 5947 to subchapter IV of
chapter 59 of title 5, United States Code.
The new section 5947 rewrites and makes technical conforming
changes to include in title 5, United States Code, the basic authority
previously contained in Public Law 84-35.
Subsection (a) of the new section 5947 continues the present author-
ity for an employee of the Corps of Engineers, engaged in floating
plant operations, to be furnished quarters or subsistence, or both, on
vessels Without charge when the furnishing of the quarters or sub-
sistence, or both, is determined to be equitable to the employee and
necessary in the public interest. The rewriting of this provi`ion is not
intended to make any substantive change from the authority under
existing law for the Corps of Engineers to furnish such quarters or
subsistence "on vessels."
Subsection (b) of the new section 5947 contains additional authority
for the Corps of Engineers to furnish an appropriate allowance in place
of the quarters or subsistence when adverse weather conditions or
similar circumstances prevent the transportation of the employee from
the shore to the vessel, or quarters or subsistence or both are not
available on the vessel while it is undergoing repairs.
The language "notwithstanding section 5536 of this title," is used
in this subsection in order to remove any doubt, that the allowance
may be paid regardless of whether there is a specific appropriation for
the payment of the additional allowance. The provisions of section
5536, prohibit the payment of any additional allowances to a Federal
employee, "unless specifically authorized by law, and the appropria-
tion therefor, specifically states that it is for the additional pay or
allowance."
The now subsection (c) continues the existing authority of the
Secretary of the Army, to issue regulations relating to the furnishing of
quarters or subsistence on such vessels, and extends such authority to
issue regulations, to cover the furnishing of the allowance, which may
be furnished in place of the quarters or subsistence.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : c -RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
Section 8(b) of the bill makes the necessary technical adjustments
in the table of contents of such subchapter IV, to include the reference
to the new section 5947.
Section 8(c) of the bill repeals the provisions of Public Law 84-35.
Similar provisions are included as a part of the new section 5947,
which is added to title 5, United States Code.
Section 9 of the bill provides the appropriate effective dates.
Subsection (a) provides that the first section, prescribing the title of
the act, section 9, and sections 2 and 3, relating to the Federal Em-
ployees Salary Commission and Board of Arbitration, shall become
effective on date of enactment.
Subsection (b) provides an effective date of the first day of the first
pay period which begins on or after October 1, 1969, for section 5,
relating to a two-step increase for postal employees in levels 1 through
11, and time-in-grade conversion provisions for postal employees in
levels 12 and above; for section 6, relating to the premium pay pro-
visions for employees performing irregular and unscheduled duty; for
section 7, relating to the allowance for employees at remote worksites;
and for section 8, relating to quarters or subsistence allowance for
floating plant operations employees.
Subsection (c) provides an effective date of the first pay period which
begins on or after July 1, 1970, for section 4, relating to the time-in-
step requirements for automatic step increases for postal field service
employees.
COSTS
It is expected that there will not be any substantial additional costs
under sections 1 through 3, which create the Federal Employee Salary
Commission and the Federal Employee Salary Board of Arbitration,
since the major part of the activities to be performed by these two
agencies now are being performed by the Bureau of the Budget and the
Civil Service Commission, and such activities will be performed here-
after by the Commission.
The fiscal year 1970 additional cost will be $244 million, and fiscal
year 1971 additional cost will be $554 million, for the accelerated step
increases for postal field service employees, under section 4 which
becomes effective in October 1969, and section 5 which becomes
effective in July 1970.
The annual costs of the miscellaneous benefits under sections 6, 7,
and 8 will not exceed $100,000.
AGENCY REPORTS
There are set forth below the agency reports on this legislation as
follows :
1. Letters dated July 23, 1969, on H.R. 12823 (which is similar
to the provisions of sections 1 through 5 of the reported bill)
from the Bureau of the Budget, the Postmaster General, and the
U.S. Civil Service Commission and letter dated July 18, 1969,
from the General Accounting Office.
2. Report dated June 16, 1969, from the Bureau of the Budget,
and report dated June 17, 1969, from the U.S. Civil Service
Commission on H.R. 10052, the provisions of which are included
in section 6 of the reported bill.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/0,14131 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
3. Report dated June 16, 1969, from the. Bureau of the Budget,
and report dated June 17, 1969, from the U.S. Civil Service
Commission on H.R. 524, the provisions of which are similar to
the provisions of section 7 of the bill.
4. Report dated June 16, 1969, from the Bureau of the Budget,
report dated June 17, 1969, from the U.S. Civil Service Com-
mission, and report dated June 23, 1969, from Lite Department
of the Army on H.R. 2784, the provisions of which are similar
to the provisions of section 8 of the bill.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
II ashington, D.C., July 23, 1969.
Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI,
Chairman, Committee on Post M_ ce and Civil Service,
House of Representatives, shington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CuAtRMxN- This is in reply to the committee's request
for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on MR, 12823, a bill to
implement the Federal employee pay comparability system; to estab-
lish a Federal Employee Salary Commission and a Board of Arbitra-
tion, and for other purposes, H.R. 12124, a bill to implement the
Federal employees' pay comparability systeni; to establish a Federal
Management-Labor Salary Survey Board, and for other pill, poses, and
H.R. 12538, a bill to provide emergency salary adjustments for certain
employees in the postal field service to offset the increase in the cost-of-
living index.
11.R. 12823 would restate, in essence, the principles of the Federal
Salary Reform Act of 1952. We recognize these principles and have
supported their application to pay administration in the Federal Gov-
ernment, However, 11.It,. 12823 would also establish a Federal Em-
ploy ee Salary Commission to determine statutory salary system pay
rates in accordance with the principles, and it would create a Federal
Employee Salary Board of Arbitration to review the determinations of
the proposed commission. The board would snake the final determina-
tion of rates should employee unions or their representatives on the
commission appeal the colnnnission's findings. The Congress would be
given an opportunity to disapprove the findings of the commission and
the board.
The bill would require the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to
submit its annual national pay survey report not later than July 31
and the submission of the proposed commission's report to the
Congress not later than the following February 1. The new rates
would become effective at the beginning of the first pay period which
begins on or after the first day of the year in which the commission's
report would be submitted. Finally, the bill would accelerate the
advance of Postal Field Service employees in their within-grade
salary range.
The Civil Service Commission is submitting a report on U.R. 12823,
II.R. 12538, and H.R. 12124 in. which it indicates why these bills are
undesirable. We endorse the comments of the Commission.
In addition to the comments of the Civil Service Commission, we
are particularly concerned about H.R. 12823 because the organiza-
tions and procndures which the. bill would establish would remove the
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : Cil, fA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
President from pay determinations. Although the Congress would be
given the opportunity for review of the commission's pay determina-
tions and those of the board through procedures similar to those
contained in the reorganization statute (chapter 9 of title 5 of the
United States Code), the President would not have the role he has
under reorganization procedures and would have no authority or
responsibility to deal with this vital executive function. We believe
this would be highly objectionable and unwise. Moreover, the com-
position and functions of the proposed commission and board raise
serious constitutional questions. Federal salary increases require
expenditures of too great a magnitude to be determined other than
by legislation or by the President. With more than 2 million employees
in the four civilian pay systems affected, and with the pay of 3,500,000
military personnel moving in accordance with the civilian salary
adjustment, each 1 percent of a pay increase now carries an annual
cost of $433 million.
In addition, the time schedule for BLS survey reports and salary
adjustments as provided in the bill would do little or nothing to
eliminate time lag in the adjustments. By requiring BLS reports not
later than July 31, the BLS would be forced either to a data collection
calendar with a reference date of January or to a virtually complete
divorce of the national survey from the BLS area wage surveys in
order to have a reference date later than January. Such a divorce
would require substantial additions to the BLS staff and would gain
no more than 2 or 3 months.
Sections 4 and 5 of H.R. 12823 pertain to the salaries of postal
field service personnel. Section 4 of the bill would accelerate within-
grade progression to three times the current speed. We believe this
would be exorbitant, entailing added costs which build up in time to
$800 million a year. Moreover, this provision completely disregards
the purpose of within-grade salary provisions. Within-grade salary
increases are intended to reward (1) improved performance and (2)
continued and faithful service. Increases every 6 months have no
realistic relation to the degree of improvement in performance; and
if the rewards for faithful service are to be exhausted in the short
time span provided by the bill, there is no longer a reasonable basis
for a within-grade range as great as the 37 percent currently provided.
Postal employees now move more rapidly through the within-grade
range than do General Schedule employees. There is no reasonable
basis for a further speedup.
Section 5 of the bill would provide a two within-grade step increase
for postal field service employees. This would have an annual cost of
$324 million, and would grossly discriminate in favor of those em-
ployees and against other Federal employees. The postal employee
pay increase in the July 1969 adjustment was less on the average than
that of general schedule employees because (1) the 1967 salary act
gave postal employees larger increases in 1967 and 1968 and thus
placed them closer to comparability and (2) the populous upper
grades of the general schedule were always caused to lag far behind
comparability in legislative adjustments between 1962 and 1967.
Postal employees were simply brought even with other Federal
employees (except for the one grade bonus given postal employees in
linkage of PFS-5 with GS-5) by the 1969 adjustment. We believe
that they should not receive favored treatment.
H. Rept. 480, 01--1-3
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/O1931 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
This committee is now considering legislation-H.R. 11750-which
would, if enacted, create a Government-owned postal corporation
charged with responsibility for maintaining comparability of com-
pensation and benefits of postal workers with the non-Federal sectors
of the economy. Enactment of that bill, which we strongly recommend,
would eliminate the postal field service from the coverage of this
and other statutory pay systems, and would enable postal employees
to negotiate their pay rates, through collective bargaining with postal
management, on an up-to-date comparability basis.
II.E.. 12124, like H.R. 12823, would remove the President from
Federal pay determinations. In addition, it would lay down statutory
requirements relative to intergrade differentials and comparability
payline construction and would provide pay increases effective in
January 1970 which amount to as much as 17 percent for some grades.
We object to H.R. 12124 for the same reasons as those cited above for
H.R. 12823. In addition, it would provide for practices which would
be contrary to the general schedule position classification plan and
which would force misinterpretation of BLS survey data.
H.R. 12538 would provide an increase of 5.4 percent for the first
10 grades of the postal field service, to be effective retroactively to
July 1, 1969. We oppose enactment for the reasons cited relative to
the pay increase provisions in II.R. 12823.
For the reasons cited, the Bureau of the Budget is strongly opposed
to enactment of H.R. 12823, II.R. 12124, and H.R. 12538. We are
developing an alternative approach to the setting of Federal pay
which we believe would assure equity for all Federal employees with
appropriate executive and congressional involvement. We expect to
have this ready for consideration soon. Accordingly, we urge the
committee delay action until we have an opportunity to present our
proposal.
Sincerely,
PHILLIP S. HUGHES,
Zhpnty Director.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., July 23, 1969.
Hon. THADDEUUS J. Du siu,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have your letter of July 15, 1969, re-
questing reports on H.R. 12124, H.R. 12538, and H.R. 12823, All
of these bills relate to salaries of postal field service employees and
except for H.R. 12538 contain provisions relating to other employees
as well.
As you know, I did not have an opportunity to testify on any of
these propposals. H.R. 12823 was not introduced until July 14, and
I regret that the committee could not see its way clear to accede to
my verbal request that committee action on the bill be deferred to
enable the Department to give it more meaningful consideration.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : 9 A-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
The increased costs that would be imposed on the Department
under all of these bills are, of course, very substantial. H.R. 12538
would subject the Department to an additional cost of more than
$300 million annually. H.R. 12823 would cost the Department $244
million for the current fiscal year, $554 million for fiscal year 1971
and would have an ultimate cost to the Department of $780 million
annually,. exclusive of any costs involved in future increases of com-
pensation to maintain comparability. H.R. 12124 would increase postal
costs by $521.6 million in the current fiscal year and $1,043 million
annually thereafter. These increases would be superimposed on a net
operating loss already estimated to amount to $1.31 billion in fiscal
year 1970, assuming no increase in postage rates and no increase in
wages beyond the 4.7 percent increase that became effective this
month. Public service costs account for $747 million of this loss,
which means that for rate making purposes we are starting from a net
deficit position of $563 million.
In the second supplemental appropriations act the Congress has
placed an overall ceiling on expenditures of the government during
this fiscal year. As an integral part of the executive branch the Post
Office Department is required to operate within this limitation, and,
like other executive departments, may well be affected by the $3.5
billion cut in Federal spending that the President was compelled to
order yesterday. It would not be feasible for the Department to
maintain the present level of service within the funds available to it
for the balance of the fiscal year and absorb the increase in costs that
H.R. 12124, H.R. 12538, or H.R. 12823 would generate.
It is also clear that enactment of any of these three pay bills would
disrupt the interrelationship which exists between pay scales of the
postal field service employees and the pay scales of other employee
groups for whom Congress has established specific classification sys-
tems. Thus, in view of the constraints on the postal service as it
operates as an executive department I must oppose enactment of the
increases . in compensation contained in the legislation under con-
sideration.
I must point out, however, that if the Congress enacts the Postal
Service Act of 1969, the pay of rank and file postal employees will be
set through collective bargaining, which is inherently more flexible
than the current pay setting procedures.
Phase III adjustments under Public Law 90-206 did result in bring-
ing postal pay to a level comparable with pay in the private sector, as
determined under the guidelines of the statute, subject to a 1-year
timelag. I have been concerned with the length of this lag and would
support legislation to keep postal pay at comparability with a reduced
timelag if such legislation could be accommodated to existing budget
limitations.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection
to the submission of this report to the committee from the standpoint
of the administration's program.
Sincerely,
WINTON M. BLOUNT.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/014?1 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., July 23, 1965.
Ilon. THADDEUS J. DuisEi,
Citairm.an, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives.
DEAR Mr. Ca1IRh1A-,-: This is in response to your request for the
Commission's views on II.R. 12823, a bill to implement the Federal
employee pay comparability system; to establish it Federal Employee
Salary Commission and a 'Board of Arbitration, and for other pur-
poses. This report also includes a statement of the Commission's
position on II.It. 12124, a bill to implement the Federal employees'
V y comp+Iraliility system; to establish a Federal Management-
a'bor Salary Survey Board, and for other purposes, and H.R. 12538,
to provide emergency salary adjustments for certain employees in
the postal field service to offset the increase in the cost-of-living
index.
I.I.R. 12823 would establish a new procedure for implementing the.
Federal employee pay comparability policy. It would establish it Fed-
eral Employee Salary Commission which would make the salary
comparisons now made by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget
and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission as agents of the
President, and determine salary schedules which would be subject
to revision by a Federal Employee Salary Board of Arbitration and
subject to disapproval in whole or in part by either House of Con-
gress. H.R. 12823 would, iii addition, accelerate within-grade in-
creases in t e. postal field service effective in July 1970 and grant
a two-step bonus increase to postal employees cfective in October
1969.
The Civil Service Commission is strongly opposed to the enactment
of Ii. It. 12323 for the following reasons:
1. The bill's denial of a role for the President in fixing the salaries
of some 2 million civilian em (ilo;ees and sonic 3.4 million members
of the Armed Forces is totally inconsistent with his constitutional
position as head of the executive branch.
2. The bill'; procedures are undesirably complex.
3. The accelerated within-grade increase provisions for postal
employyees are unneeded, inequitable. and costly.
4. `l he two-step bonus proposed for October 1969 is neither needed
nor justified.
II.R. 12823 would govern the adjustment of salaries for seine 2
million Federal employees. In addition, under the terms of Public
Law 90.207 of December 16, 1967, the adjustments would apply
also to military personnel. An increase of only 1 percent now costs
some $433 iiiilfioif a year. It is unthinkable that the President would
be deified a role in this process. It is entirely inconsistent with his
constitf.itionol responsihilities. It clearly runs counter to the dictates
of good management. The Commission finds this feature of the bill
to be quite unacceptable.
The Commission considers the procedures proposed by the bill to
be undesirably complex. The bill sets up two new agencies, a Salary
Commission and it Board of Arbitration. After the seven-member
Commission completes its deliberations it makes its recommendations.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 2IPIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
These recommendations can, and we think will, be taken to the
seven-member Board for review and possible revision, before they
go to Congress where either House may not only disapprove them
in their entirety but may, if it chooses, disapprove parts of them.
Contributing to the complexity is the fact that the nature of the
procedure is such that it seems inevitable that each salary adjustment
proposed by the Salary Commission will be taken to the Board. This
will result because it could appear that there would be no advantage
in reaching agreement at the Salary Commission level. Therefore
each recommended adjustment probably would go to the Board in
the hope of a more favorable decision.
One might indeed question whether the procedure, seen from this
point of view, will really serve the purpose we all want-the Congress,
the unions, and the administration-that is, to reach a meeting of the
minds between employee representatives and management through
back-and-forth discussion of the issues.
Section 4 of H.R. 12823 would amend section 3552(a) of title 39,
United States Code, so as to provide that postal employees will
advance to the next higher rate of the rate range after each 6 months
of service up to the seventh rate of the rate range and then after a
year to the eighth rate and above. Postal employees are now advanced
to the next rate after each year of service up to the seventh rate and
then after 3 years' service to the eighth rate and above. There are
12 rates.
Section 4 of the bill would provide a much more rapid rate of pro-
gression than is afforded to General Schedule employees. They qualify
for an increase after 1 year to the next higher rate up to the fourth
rate, after 2 years, up to the seventh rate, and, after 3 ears, up to the
10th rate. There are only 10 rates. Taking GS-5 and PFS-5 as exam-
the first 10 rates are identical. PFS-5 has two additional rates.
Ve postal employee today progresses to the 10th rate after 15 years
of service, and the General Schedule employee progresses to the 10th
rate after 18 years of service. If H.R. 12823 were enacted, the postal
employee would reach the 10th rate after 6 years of service. The
Commission knows of no rationale for giving such preferential
treatment to postal employees.
It should be understood that the extended rate range-12 rates-
provided for postal employees in levels up through PFS-6 is justified
on the grounds that many postal employees have little opportunity for
promotion and there should be a continuing opportunity for pay in-
creases. The Commission sees no justification for the drastically
accelerated increases to the top of a 12-rate range.
It is assumed that the accelerated increase provisions rest on the
premise that the salaries for postal workers should, progress reason-
ably quickly to the level which is considered to be appropriate for the
jobs in terms of their relationship to private enterprise salaries. It is
necessary to review the basis for the postal salaries established by the
adjustment recently authorized by the President pursuant to the
Federal Salary Act of 1967 to show that no acceleration in within-level
advancement is necessary to achieve this. For the 1969 adjustment and
for each of the comparisons between Federal and private enterprise
salaries made since the Salary Reform Act of 1962, the clerk/carrier
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/0 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
level of the postal schedule has been linked with GS-5. This linkage
was based upon the conclusion that although in terms of job evaluation
the positions can best be compared with the 05-4 level in the General
Schedule, they would be linked with GS-5 because of limited promo-
tional opportunities. This linkage was recognized by y our committee in
reporting the Federal Salary Act of 1967. Consistently, the fourth rate
of the rate range in the general schedule grades has been based upon the
payluie which represents the industry average for the grade. On the
basis of the linkage and on the basis of the BLS survey then, it is the
fourth rate of P1 S--5 that best reflects the average for the clerk!
carrier jobs. It takes only 3 years to progress to that rate.
Because of the limited opportunities for promotion, the median
regular employee is in the eighth rate of PFS-5. The fact that most
employees are well above the rate that is based on the payline, however,
affords no basis for arguing that employees should progress rapidly to
that eighth rate. To provide such an accelerated advancement would
clearly be giving tho employee a double advantage.
Section 5 of H.R. 12823 would provide for a two-step increase for
each employee in levels 1 through 11 in October 1969. The Commission
finds this increase, which would amount to about 5.4 percent, to be
entirely inappropriate.
Postal unions have made many charges regarding the adjustment
ordered by the President for July 1969. We answered some of these in
our letter of July 11, 1969, in response to your request. Let me repeat
here that the Bureau of the Budget and the Commission did not bias
the survey. I should like to make two points regarding the July adjust-
ment. It was appropriately made in accordance with the requirements
of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 and living-cost changes since July
1968 do not form the basis for any other adjustment.
it was the objective of the rederal Salary Act of 1967 to reach
comparability by 1969. The law prescribed that the 1969 adjustment
was to be based upon the 1968 prescribed
survey. The fact that the 1969
increase for postal employees was less than that for general schedule
employees is due the the fact that the statute granted postal employees
larger increases in 1967 and 1968 than were afforded general schedule
employees.
At the clerk/carrier level the increases were 6 percent in 1967 and
5 percent in 1968. For GS-5, the increase was only 4.5 percent in 1967
and 3 percent in 1968.
It should also be remembered that prior to the increases of 1967 and
1968 the clerk/carrier and the GS-5 salary schedules were the same.
As was the intent of the law, the 1969 adjustment made them, once
again; the same.
The fact that living costs have increased since the 1968 adjustment
is not a basis for additional increase for Vestal employees. The solution
is to reduce the tiurelag as recommended in the Commissions' testi-
mony of June 17, 1969. The timelag affects not only postal employees
but the employees of all the salary systems. In adition it affects the
pay of military personnel. It is the established policy to fix salaries on
the basis of salaries paid in the private sector-not on the basis of living
costs. We are very much aware, at the moment, of living cost increases
but it is unfair to judge the salary policy by a short term change. Let us
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : qA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
look at what happened in the years from 1957 through 1968. Using
the base period of 1957-59 upon which the current consumer price
index is based, while there was an increase of 21.2 percent in the CPI
there was an increase of 47.6 percent in the average annual salaries for
the fourth step of the clerk/carrier position (see attached chart). This
shows clearly how postal salaries have over a period of time out-
stripped living-cost increases.
The Commission is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 12124 because
it fails to give the President the powers which are essential for him to
carry out his constitutional duties; because it provides by statute rules
for constructing a payline; because the specific rules provided are not
in accord with the general schedule position classification plan, and
would result in a misinterpretation of the private enterprise pay data;
and because there is absolutely no basis for the increase provided by
the proposed salary schedules.
The Commission is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 12538 for
the same reasons that it is opposed to section 5 of H.R. 12823.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission is strongly opposed
to the enactment of H.R. 12823, H.R. 12124, and H.R. 12538. Instead
the Commission urges that the committee defer action pending the
development of a proposal to carry out the objectives outlined by the
Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission in hearings
before the Compensation Subcommittee on June 17, 1969. Such a
proposal would be designed to provide a sound, simple approach
which will give appropriate roles to the President, to the Congress,
and to the employee organizations.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the
submission of this report.
By direction of the Commission:
Sincerely yours,
J. E. JOHNSON,
Acting Chairman.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., Jucy 18, 1969.
B-167266.
Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We refer to your letter of July 15, 1969,
requesting our report upon H.R. 12823, 91st Congress, which, upon
enactment, would be cited as the "Federal Salary Comparability Act
of 1969."
The manner of fixing and adjusting the pay of the employees to
whom the bill applies on a basis comparable with rates paid by private
enterprise for the same levels of work is a matter of policy for deter-
mination by the Congress. Similarly the additional pay increase for
postal service employees, as provided for in the bill, involves a matter
of congressional policy. We, therefore, offer no recommendation upon
the merits of the bill.
In general the provisions of the bill appear adequate to accomplish
the purposes of the bill.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01231 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
As a technical matter we note that the terns "employee" is one which
is defined in title 5 (sec. 2105) and does not include elected officials.
Also, the term "Member of Congress" is defined in such title (sec.
2106). In view thereof, we suggest changing the language appearing
on lines 15 and 16, page 9 of the bill to read as follows: "of this title
and each such member who is not an employee or Member of Congress
shall be paid at the rate of $100 for each dzay,".
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT F. KELLER,
(For the Comptroller General of the United Stnte:s.)
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Hon. THADDEUS J. DuLSiI,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., June 16, 1969.
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C:
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to the committee's request
for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on II.R. 10052, to amend
title 5, United States Code, to correct certain inequities with respect
to the premium pay of certain employees performing irregular and
unscheduled duty, and for other purposes.
The bill would adjust the pay of certain empployees who now receive
additional annual premium pay for uncontrollable overtime work but
who are denied renular premium pay for nonovertime Sunday duty,
for regularly scheduled work at night or for work on a holiday.
The Bureau of the Budget concurs with the amendments which the
Civil Service Commission is proposing in its report to your committee
on this bill.
There would be no objection to enactment of II.R. 10052 if it is
amended as suggested by the Civil Service Commission.
Sincerely yours,
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference.
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
li'ashington, D.C., June 17, 1969.
Moan. THADDEUS J. Dui,sm i,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Cie'tl Scrcicc,
House of Iielresentatices.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further response to your request
for a report on H.R. 10052, to amend title 5, United States Code, to
correct certain inequities with respect to the premium pay of certain
employees performing irregular and unscheduled duty, and for other
purposes.
Enactment of this measure will provide more equitable treatment
for border patrol inspectors and other employees who are now receiving
additional annual premium pay for uncontrollable overtime work.
Under present law, these employees may not be given any additional
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 :CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
compensation for regularly scheduled nonovertime Sunday duty, for
regularly scheduled work at night or for work on a holiday. They do,
however, receive premium compensation for overtime hours that are
regularly scheduled.
The Civil Service Commission strongly endorses the purpose of
H.R. 10052 and urges that it be given favorable consideration with the
amendments suggested in this re ort.
Section 5545(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code, which would be
amended by this bill, authorizes agency heads to grant additional
compensation on an annual basis to employees who perform substan-
tial amounts of irregular unscheduled overtime duty and duty at
night, on Sundays, and on holidays. This authority is applicable only
where the nature of the employment is such that the employee is
gendrally responsiblte for recognizing, without supervision, circum-
stances that require him to remain on duty. The annual rate of addi-
tional pay may not be less than 10 percent nor more than 25 percent
of that part of the employee's base pay that does not exceed the
minimum rate for GS-10. No other premium pay may be granted to
these employees except for regularly scheduled overtime duty.
In some occupations where the employees are being paid additional
annual premium rates under this authority, the operations must be
carried on around the clock 7 days a week. This is especially true in
border work where the employees have regularly scheduled tours of
duty that include Sunday, night, and holiday work as part of the
basic 40-hour workweek. Under the present law they do not receive
any form of premium pay for this duty while most other Federal
employees are paid a 25-percent differential for regularly scheduled
nonovertime Sunday work, a 10-percent differential for regularly
scheduled night duty, and double time for work on a holiday. They
do, however, receive the same premium compensation as other
employees for regularly scheduled overtime duty.
To lessen this inequity, H.R. 10052 amends 5 U.S.C. 5545(c)(2) to
provide that additional annual pay under this authority will com-
pensate employees only for holiday and irregular unscheduled overtime
duty and that otherwise applicable premium rates will be paid for
regularly scheduled Sunday, night, and overtime duty.
The Commission supports the amendment in H.R. 10052 but finds
no apparent justification for not extending the regular premium ay
provisions to cover holidays on which the employees are assigned to
work. Accordingly, it is recommended that H.R. 10052 be amended
as follows :
On page 1, line 8, strike out "and duty on holidays".
On page 2, line 5, immediately after "Sunday duty", insert ", and
for holiday duty".
On page 2, line 11, strike out "holiday and".
Due to the relatively small groups of employees who are being paid
additional annual compensation under 5 U.S.C. 5545(c)(2), it may
reasonably be assumed the cost of this legislation would not be sub-
stantial. The major groups affected will be border patrolmen and
deputy United States marshals in the Department of Justice and
certain customs and internal revenue personnel in the Treasury
Department.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/0191 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the
Administration's pr?gram there is no objection to the submission of
this report.
By direction of the Commission.
Sincerely Yours.
ROBERT E. HAMPTON, Chairman.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE of TIIE PRESIDENT,
Hon. THADDEUS J. DLLSEI,
BUIU AU OF THE BUDGET,
II'ashington, D.C., June 16, 1969.
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to the Committee's request
for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 524, "To authorize
the payment of allowances to defray commuting expenses of civilian
employees of executive agencies assigned to duty at remote work-
sites, and for other purposes."
The purpose of the bill is to authorize a daily allowance of not to
exceed $10 for employees assigned to duty at remote worksites.
In commenting on similar bills in the last Congress, the Bureau
noted the absence of factual background to supl)ort legislation along
the lines proposed. The Civil Service Commission is presently con-
ducting a special study to determine what the facts are with respect
to employees at remote worksites.
Accordingly, until the study is completed and the facts evaluated,
we cannot recommend enactment of the legislation.
Sincerely yours,
WILFRED H. R0,IIMEL,
Assistant Director for Legislative Peference.
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE Co1IMISSION,
Washington, D.C., June 17, 1969.
Hon. THADDEUS J. DI;LSIII,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
Haase of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in rep] to your request for the
views of the Civil Service Commission on II.R. 524, to authorize the
payment of allowances to defray commuting expenses of civilian
employees of executive agencies assigned to duty at remote worksites,
slid for other purposes.
This bill, if enacted, will provide authority to pay an allowance not
to exceed $10 per day to defray the commuting expenses of ein loyees
of executive agencies assigned to duty at remote worksites. Present
regulations will be in effect until new regulations can be issued.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CkWRDP72-00337R000400070004-4
The Civil Service Commission supported legislation to provide a
special travel allowance for employees assigned to the California
offshore islands and the Nevada Test Site. It also suggested that a
special travel allowance would be appropriate for those employees
assigned to Fort Irwin, Calif. The basic question is whether the
Congress should continue to deal with these situations one at a time,
or whether general legislation, such as proposed in H.R. 524, should
be enacted allowing the executive branch to pay such allowances
whenever justified.
The Bureau of the Budget is primarily responsible for all travel
matters but the Commission has an interest in the personnel manage-
ment aspects of travel problems. Recruitment and retention of com-
petent employees is naturally made more difficult by unfavorable
circumstances such as the need to travel unusually long distances to
and from the job. The Commission is currently cooperating with
the Bureau in conducting a special study on this subject. When this
study is completed we will be in a position to advise you further
regarding the need for the general legislation proposed. Therefore the
Commission believes it would be premature to recommend that favor-
able action be taken on H.R. 524 at this time.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the
Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of
this report.
By direction of the Commission.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. HAMPTON, Chairman.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Hon. THADDEUS J. DULSKI, Washington, D. C., June 16, 1969.
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to the committee's request
for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 2784, "To amend
title 5, United States Code, to authorize the payment of an appro-
priate allowance, in lieu of quarters and subsistence, to employees of
the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, engaged in floating
plant operations."
The Bureau of the Budget concurs in the amendment which the
Department of the Army is proposing in its report to your committee
on this bill.
Accordingly, there would be no objection to enactment of H.R.
2784, amended as suggested by the Department of the Army.
Sincerely yours,
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/94/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
IIon. THADDEUS J. DULSIiI,
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., June 17, 1969.
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
116 use of Representatives.
DEAR Alit. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for
the views of the Civil Service Commission on H.R. 2784, a bill "To
amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize the payment of an
appropriate allowance, in lieu of quarters and subsistence, to em-
lpIovees of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, engaged
in floating plant operations."
This bill would authorize the payment of an allowance to employees
of the Army Corps of Engineers engaged in floating plant operations
in instances, when the Corps is unable to furnish subsistence or
quarters or when employees are unable to board because of bad
weather. It further provides that allowances granted be given in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
At the present time, these employees are entitled to subsistence
and quarters on vessels without charge whenever messing and quarter-
ing are considered equitable and necessary in the public: interest.
Situations do arise, however, when the corps determines that it
'would be uneconomical to maintain stewards' facilities, or when repair
work or bad weather will not permit living on board. In these instances
employees must provide food and lodging at their own expense.
The Commission feels that this situation is neither equitable nor
proper. When Government employees travel for the convenience of
the Government they are allowed per diem allowances. The Comnus-
sion feels these employees of the Corps of Engineers are in a similar
situation when they are displaced from their living quarters afloat
and should receive the same benefits.
We understand that the Department of the Army is submitting a
report recommending an amendment clarifying the situation in which
an allowance would be paid. The Commission supports H.R. 2784,
if amended as suggested in the Department of the Army report.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the
administration's program there is no objection to the submission of
this re ort.
By direction of the Commission.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. HAMPTON, Chairman.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARNn-,
Tl'askington, D.C., June 23, 1969.
Ilon. THADDEUS J. D[ LSKI,
Chairman, Committee on Post Of/ice and Civil Service,
house of Representatives, TT'ashington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the
Secretary of Defense, for the views of the Department of Defense,
for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 2784, 91st Con-
gress, a bill to amend title 5 United States Code, to authorize the
payment of an appropriate allowance, in lieu of quarters and subsis-
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : Cam-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
tence, to employees of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army, engaged in floating plant operations. The Department of the
Army has been assigned responsibility for expressing the views of the
Department of Defense on this bill.
This bill provides that quarters, or subsistence, or both, may be
furnished without charge to employees of the Corps of Engineers who
are engaged in floating plant operations. Similar authority is presently
contained in the act of May 13, 1955, ch. 38, (69 Stat. 48). In addi-
tion, the bill provides authority for the furnishing of an appropriate
allowance, when circumstances beyond the control of the Corps of
Engineers or the employee prevent the furnishing of quarters, or sub-
sistence, or both.
In certain circumstances, Corps employees have been unable to
obtain the benefits provided by the existing law. This occurs, for exam-
ple when a dredge is undergoing periodic or emergency overhaul, or
when employees reporting for duty at the beginning of their tour of
duty at a specified point on shore for transportation to the dredge
cannot be transported because of adverse weather conditions. In such
a case, the employees must provide subsistence and quarters at their
own expense, as no authority exists to pay them an allowance in lieu
of subsistence and quarters.
In order to clarify the circumstances under which an allowance
would be payable, it is recommended that section 5947b as set out in
the bill be revised as follows:
"(b) Notwithstanding section 5536 of this title, an employee of the
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, engaged in floating
plant operations who would be entitled to quarters or subsistence, or
both, under subsection (a) of this section if on a vessel may be paid
an allowance for quarters or subsistence, or both, if-
"(1) adverse weather conditions or similar circumstances
beyond the control of the employee and the Corps of Engineers
prevent transportation of the employee from shore to the vessel;
or
"(2) quarters or subsistence, or both, are not available on
the vessel because it is undergoing repairs.
However, an allowance for quarters or subsistence may not be paid
under this subsection if section 5702 of this title is applicable, or if
quarters and subsistence are not authorized under subsection (a) of
this section."
Under the above wording, it would be clear that allowances would
be payable only if (a) adverse weather conditions or similar cir-
cumstances beyond the control of the employee and the Corps of
Engineers prevented transportation to the floating plant where the
quarters and subsistence would otherwise have been available, (b)
the unavailability of quarters and subsistence is due to repairs (as
opposed to regular seasonal layup) of the floating plant, (c) the
employee is not receiving travel per diem in lieu of subsistence and
quarters under section 5702 of title 5, and (d) the employee is entitled
to receive quarters or subsistence, or both, under regulations issued
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
With the suggested amendments, the Department of the Army,
on behalf of the Department of Defense, recommends that the bill
be favorably considered.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01631 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
This report has been coordinated within the Department of De-
fense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense.
If this bill is enacted, it is estimated that the annual cost to the
Department of Defense will be $65,000.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of
the administrations program, there is no objection to the presentation
of this report for the consideration of the committee.
Sincerely,
STANLEY R. RESOR,
Secretary of the Army.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAw MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are show=n as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
Chapter 53. PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS
Sec. I.-PAY COMPARABILITY SYSTEM
.
5301. Policy.
F,5302. Annual reports on pay eomparab ility.3 5308. Federal Employee Salary
'ommission; Federal Employee Salary Board of Arbitration.
5303. Higher minimum rates; Presidential authority.
5304. Presidential policies and regulations.
SUBCHAPTER I.-PAY COMPARABILITY SYSTEM
[? 5301. Policy.
[ft is the policy of Congress that Federal pay fixing be based on the
principles that-
[(I) there be equal pay for substantially equal work, and pay
distinctions be maintained in keeping with work and performance
distinctions; and
[(2) Federal pay rates be comparable with private enterpirse
pay rates for the same levels of work.
Pay levels for the several Federal statutory pay systems shall be inter-
related, and pay levels shall be set and adjuste in accordance with
these principles.]
? 5301. Policy
(a) It is the policy of Congress that rates of pay for employees within
the purview of this section be based on the principles that-
(1) there be equal pay under each pay system for substantially
equal work;
(2) pay distinctions be maintained in keeping with work distinc-
tions; and
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(3) rates of pay be comparable on a national basis, with private
enterprise rates of pay for the same levels of work.
(b) Rates of pay shall be adjusted annually, in accordance with the
policy set forth in subsection (a) of this section and the procedures pre-
scribed by section 5302 of this title, for those employees subject to-
(1) section 5332 of this title, relating to employees under the
General Schedule;
(2) part III of title 39, relating to employees in the postal field
service;
(3) sections 867 and 870 of title 22, relating to officers, staff officers,
and employees in the Foreign Service of the United States; and
(4) section 4107 of title 38, relating to physicians, dentists, and
nurses in the Department of Medicine and Surgery, Veterans'
Administration.
[? 5302. Annual reports on pay comparability.
[In order to carry out the policy stated by section 5301 of this title
the President shall-
[(1) direct such agency as he considers appropriate, to prepare
and submit to him annually a report which compares the rates of
pay fixed by statute for employees with the rates of pay paid for
the same levels of work in private enterprise as determined on the
basis of appropriate annual surveys conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics; and
[(2) after seeking the views of such employee organizations as
he considers appropriate and in such manner as he may provide,
report annually to Congress-
[(A) this comparison of Federal and private enterprise pay
rates ; and
[(B) such recommendations for revision of statutory pay
schedules, pay structures, and pay policy, as he considers
advisable.]
?5302. Federal Employee Salary Commission; Federal Employee
Salary Board of Arbitration
(a) There is established, as a permanent agency of the Government,
a Federal Employee Salary Commission, referred to as the "Commission".
(b) The Commission shall be composed of 8 members and 3 associate
members, as follows:
(1) the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission or, in his
absence, his designee, who shall be Chairman;
(2) 1 designated by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget;
(3) 1 designated by the Secretary of Defense;
(4) 1 designated by the Postmaster Geneal;
(5) 1 designated by the organization of employees having the
largest number of members in the General Schedule;
(6) 2, one designated by each of the 2 employee organizations
having the largest number of members in the postal field service;
(7) 1 designated by an employee organization, other than an
organization designating a member pursuant to paragraph (5) or
(6) of this subsection, selected each year by the Chairman of the Civil
Service Commission on a rotating basis after consultation with
representatives of such employee organizations as the Chairman deter-
mines appropriate; and
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/0181 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(8) 3 associate members, one each designated by employee organi-
zations, other than organizations designating members pursuant to
paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of this subsection, selected each year by
the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission on a rotating basis
after consultation with representatives of such employee organiza-
tions as the Chairman determines appropriate.
A member of the Commission has----
(A) 1 vote, if designated under paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), or (7)
of this subsection;
(B) one-half cote, if designated under paragraph (6) of this
subsection; or
(C) 1 vote to be cast only to break a tie vote of the Commission, if
serving under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
Each associate member of the Connmission is entitled to attend all meetings
of, consult with., and be heard by, the Commission, on all matters, but does
not have a vote.
(c) The Commiss;on shall, in accordance with the policy set .forth in
section 5301(a) of this title, after consultation with representatives of
such agencies and employee organizations as it determines appropriate-
(1) prescribe, and revise from time to time as it deems appropriate
a comparability pay survey_
(A) which will develop valid comparisons of (i) the rates
of pay for employees within the purview of section 5301(b)
of this title and (ii) the rates of pay for the same levels of work
in private industry; and
(B) which shall be conducted annually by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor;
(2) prepare annually a comparative statement of the rates of
pay for such employees and the rates of pay for the same levels of
work in private industry as disclosed by the comparability pay
survey;
(3) determine and prescribe, on the basis of -information and
data disclosed by the annual comparability pay survey, the exact
national rates of pay for such employees which are necessary to
effect the policy set forth in section 5801(a) of this title;
(4) review, annually, the comparability of the rates of pay and
step increase policies within and between the various pay systems
for such tinployees, taking into consideration such matters as the
Commission determines have affected or may affect such compara-
bility, including, but not limited to--
(A) within-grade rates of pay employees are receiving due to
differing length of service requirements for step increases, step
increases without regard to length of service, or different numbe7
of with in-.grade steps;
(B) different rates of pay under the various pay systems for
the sa.rne level of work;
((_) pay distinctions not being maintained in keeping with
work distinctions, the degree of responsibility placed, the scope
and tariet?f of tasks involved, or the extent of decision making
authority required; and
(1)) premium pay policies; and
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 391A-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(5) except as provided in subsection (e) and subsection (g) of this
section, prepare and submit annually to the Congress a report
setting forth
(A) the comparison of rates of pay prepared pursuant to
paragraph (2) of this subsection;
(B) the exact national rates of pay for such employees pre-
scribed by the Commission in accordance with paragraph (3)
of this subsection; and
(C) recommendations for legislation as may be necessary to
achieve the comparability policy set forth in section 5301 (a) of
this title or to achieve comparability within and between pay
systems for employees within the purview of section 5301 (b) of
this title.
(d) (1) In the exercise of the authority and the performance of the duties
vested in and imposed upon the Commission by this section, the Com-
mission-
(A) shall seek the views, in such manner as the Commission may
provide, of such employee organizations as the Commission considers
appropriate; and
(B) give thorough consideration to those views.
(2) All decisions of the Commission shall be by a majority vote. The
votes shall be recorded. A record shall be maintained of the views, assenting
or dissenting, of the members of the Commission. The record of votes and
views shall be available for public inspection and copying pursuant to
section 552 of this title.
(e) If a member of the Commission determines, and advises the Com-
mission, that the rates of pay applicable to the appropriate pay system,
as the rates are prescribed by the Commission, are not in conformity with
the policy set forth in section 5301 (a) of this title, the Commission shall
submit, not later than February 1 following that determination, the rates
j ~~ppay to the Board established by subsection (f) of this section for con-
eration by the Board.
(f) (1) There is established, as a permanent agency of the Government,
a Federal Employee Salary Board of Arbitration, referred to as the
"Board", which shall be composed of 7 members as follows:
(A) 2 Members of the United States Senate designated by the Presi-
dent pro tempore of the Senate, each from a different political party;
(B) 2 Members of the United States House of Representatives
designated by the Speaker of the House, each from a different political
party;
(C) 1 designated by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission;
(D) 1, who may serve not more than 2 consecutive years, designated
by a majority vote of the presidents of the four employee organizations
which have designated members currently serving on the Commission
under paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (b) of this section
with each president of the employee organization under paragraph
(5) or (7) having one vote and each president of the organizations
under paragraph (6) having one-half vote; and
(E) 1 designated by a majority of the members of the Board referred
to in paragraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of this subsection from the
membership of the American Arbitration Association, who shall be
Chairman of the Board.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/1 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(2) Tin Board shall consider the rates of pay submitted to it by the
( ',namissiax pursuant to subsection (e) of this section and determine
"Whelhrr or not the rates of pay conform with the policy set forth in section
53301(a) of this title. If the Board determines that the rates of pay du not
.so eunforrn, the Board shall prepare the rates of pay as will conforrn with
that policy. The Board s/call transmit to the C`omanission not later than
the SUth dot following the date the Board receired the rates of pay sub-
witted to it by the C urnrnission, a report setting fort/c--
) the diciwyn, of the Board with respect to the rates of pay sub-
mitted by the Cornrrcissaon:
(B) the reasons fur the decision of the Board: and
(C) Such rates of pay as the Board shalt have determined to be
necessary to conform with, the policy set forth in section 5301(a) of
this title.
The decision of the Board, and such rates of pay as it may prepare in
accordance with, this paragraph, shall be f nal and conclusive.
(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the
(urrcnmissiora shall submit to the Congress the first report pursuant to
paragraph (5) of subsection (c) of this section, based on the 1969 national
survey of professional, administrative, technical, and clerical pay, not
later than. February 1, 1970, and subsequent reports pursuant to such
paragraph (5) not later than February 1 of each year thereafter.
(2) Ira the case of the submission of rates of pay by the Commission to
the Board pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Commission,
immediately upon receipt of the final and conclusive decision of the Board,
shall submit to the Congress the decision of the Board and such rates of
pay as the Board shall have determined to be necessary to conform with
the policy set forth in section. 5301(a) of this title.
(h) (1) E.ecept as prof, ,ded in paragraph (2) of this subsection, all or
part (as the case may be) of the rates of pay submitted to the Congress
as provided in subsection (c) (5) or subsection (g) of this section become
et/ective at the beginning o the first pay period that begins on, or after the
first day of the year in which the rates of pay are submitted; but only to
the extent that, within 30 days after the rates of pay are submitted to the
Congre8s-
(AJ) there has not been enacted into a law a statute establishing
rates of pay other than those proposed by all or part of such recom-
mendations,
(B) neither House of Congress has passed a resolution specifically
disc proving all or part of the recommendations, or
(U) both.
(2) Any part of the recommendations, in accordance with, express
provisions of the recommendations, may be made operative on a date
earlier than the date on which the recommendations otherwise are to take
effect.
(3) (A) The rates of pay of United States attorneys and assistant
United States attorneys whose annual salaries are fixed pursuant to
section 548 of title 38 shall be increased, effective on the first day of the
first pay period which. begins on or after the first day of the year in which
increase becomes effective pursuant to this section, by amounts equal, as
nearly as may be practicable, to the increases provided pursuant to this
section for corresponding rates of pay.
(B) Notwithstanding section 665 of title 31, the rates of pay of em-
ployees of an Executive agency and of the government of the District of
Columbia whose rates of pay are fixed by administrative action pursuant
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 :PIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
to law and are not otherwise increased pursuant to this section are hereby
authorized to be increased, effective on the first day of the first pay period
which begins on or after the first day of the year in which increases
become effective pursuant to this section, by amounts not to exceed the
increases provided pursuant to this section for corresponding rates of pay
in the appropriate schedule or scale of pay.
(C) This section does not authorize any increase in the rates of pay of
employees whose rates of pay are fixed and adjusted from time to time as
nearly as is consistent with the public interest in accordance with prevailing
rates or practices.
(D) This section shall impair any authority pursuant to which rates
of pay may be fixed by administrative action.
(4) Retroactive pay shall be paid by reason of this section only in the
case of an individual in the service of the United States (including service
in the armed forces) or the government of the District of Columbia on the
day immediately following the close of the 80-day period specified in
subsection (h) (1) of this section, except that such retroactive pay shall be
paid-
(A) to an employee who retired, during the period beginning on the
first day of the first pay period which began on or after January 1,
and ending on the day immediately following the close of the 30-day
period specified in subsection (16)(1) of this section, for services
rendered during that period, and
(B) in accordance with subchapter VIII of chapter 55 of this title,
relating to settlement of accounts, for services rendered, during the
period beginning on the first day of the first pay period which began
on or after January 1, and ending on the day immediately following
the close of the 30-day period specified in subsection (h)(1) of this
section, by an mployee who died during that period.
Such retroactive pay shall not be considered as basic pay for the purposes of
subchapter III of chapter 83 of this title, relating to civil service retire-
ment, or any other retirement law or retirement system, in the case of any
such retired or deceased employee.
(5) For the purposes of paragraph (4) of this section, service in the
armed forces, in the case of an individual relieved from training and
service in the armed forces or discharged from hospitalization following
such training and service, includes the period provided by law for the
mandatory restoration of the individual to a position in or under the
Government of the United States or the government of the District of
Columbia.
(i) Each member and each associate member of the Commission and
each member of the Board is entitled to travel expenses, including a per
diem allowance in accordance with section 5703 (b) of this title. Each
such member or associate member who is not a Member of Congress or
an employee is entitled to pay at a rate equal to the per diem equivalent
of the maximum rate of basic pay of the General Schedule for each day
he is engaged in the performance of services for the Commission or the
Board, as the case may be, except that the member from the American
Arbitration Association may be paid the usual fees prescribed by that
Association.
(j) (1) Without regard to the provisions of this title governing appoint-
ments in the competitive service and of chapter 51 of this title and sub-
chapter III of this chapter, relating to classification and General Sched-
ule pay rates-
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/0191 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(A) the Commission and the Board eactl may appoint an Executive
Director and fix his basic pay at the rate provided for level V of the
Executive Schedule by section 5816 of this title; and
(B) with the approval of the Commission or the Board, as appro-
priate, the Executive Director may appoint and fix the basic pay (at
respective rates not in excess of the maximum rate of the General
Schedule) of such additional personnel as may be necessary to carry
out the functions of the Commission or of the Board, as applicable,
and may obtain services of experts or consultants in accordance with
sect-ion 3109 of this title, but at rates for individuals not to exceed
that of GS-18.
(2) Upon the request of the Commission or of the Board, the head of
any department, agency, or establishment of any ranch of the Government
of the United States may detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the per-
sonnel of such department, agency, or establishment to assist the Com-
mission or the Board, as appropriate, in carrying out its functions.
(k) The Commission and the Board may use the United States mails
in the same manner and upon the same conditions as other departments
and agencies of the United States.
(1) The Administrator of the General Services shall_ provide adminis-
trative su~pport services for the Commission and the Board on a reim-
bursable basis.
(m) The rates of pay that take effect under this section shall modify,
supersede, or render inapplicable, as the case may be, to the erten.t
inconsistent therewith-
(1) all provisions of law enacted prior to the effective date or dates of
all or part (as the case may be) of such rates (other than any provision of
law enacted in the 80-day period specified in paragraph (1) of subsection
(h) of this section with respect to such rates); and
(2) any priorrecommendations or adjustments which took effect under
this section or prior provisions of law.
(n) The rates of pay that take effect under this section shall be printed
in-
(1) The statutes at large in the same volume as public laws;
(2) the Federal Register; and
(3) the Code of Federal Regulations.
(o) Any increase in rates of pay that takes effect under this section is
not an equivalent increase in pay within the meaning of section 5385 of
this title or section 8552 of title 39.
(p) Any rate of pay that takes effect under this section shall be initially
adjusted, effective on the effective date of such rate of pay, under conversion
rules prescribed by the President or by such agency as the President may
designate.
(q) The rates of pay of personnel subject to sections 210 and 213
(except subsections (d) and (e)) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (81
Slat. 633, 685; Public Law 90-206), and any minimum or maximum
rate, limitation, or allowance applicable to any such personnel, shall be
adjusted, effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on
or after the first day of the year in which increases become effective pur-
suant to this section, y amounts which are equal, insofar as practicable
and with such exceptions as may be necessary to provide for appropriate
relationships between positions, to the amounts of the adjustments made
pursuant to this section, by the following authorities-
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 :CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(1) the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, with respect to the judicial branch of the Government; and
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to individuals em-
ployed by the county committees established under section 590h(b)
of title 16.
Such adjustments shall be made in such manner as the appropriate
authority concerned deems advisable and shall have the force and effect
of statute.
Chapter 55.-PAY ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER V.-PREMIUM PAY
? 5545. Night, Sunday, standby, irregular, and hazardous duty dif-
ferential.
(c) The head of an agency, with the approval of the Civil Service
Commission, may provide that-
(1) an employee in a position requiring him regularly to re-
main at, or within the confines of, his station during longer than
ordinary periods of duty, a substantial part of which consists of re-
maining in a standby status rather than performing work, shall
receive premium pay for this duty on an annual basis instead of
premium pay provided by other provisions of this subchapter,.
except for irregular, unscheduled overtime duty in excess of his
regularly scheduled weekly tour. Premium pay under this para-
graph is determined as an appropriate percentage, not in excess of
25 percent, of such part of the rate of basic pay for the position as
does not exceed the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-10 (or, for a
position described in section 5542(a) (3) of this title, of the basic
pay of the position), by taking into consideration the number of
hours of actual work required in the position, the number of hours
required in a standby status at or within the confines of the sta-
tion, the extent to which the duties of the position are made more
onerous by night, Sunday, or holiday work, or by being extended
over periods of more than 40 hours a week, and other relevant.
factors; or
[(2) an employee in a position in which the hours of duty
cannot be controlled administratively, and which requires sub-
stantial amounts of irregular, unscheduled, overtime duty and
duty at night, on Sundays, and on holidays with the employee
generally being responsible for recognizing, without supervision,
circumstances which require him to remain on duty, shall receive
premium pay for this duty on an annual basis instead of premium
pay provided by other provisions of this subchapter, except
for regularly scheduled overtime duty. Premium pay under this
paragraph is determined as an appropriate percentage, not less
than 10 percent nor more than 25 percent, of such part of the
rate of basic pay for the position as does not exceed the minimum
rate of basic pay for GS-10, by taking into consideration the
frequency and duration of night, holiday, Sunday, and unsched-
uled overtime duty required in the position.]
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-003378000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/0'181 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(2) an employee in a position in which the hours of duty cannot
be controlled administratively, and which requires substantial amounts
of -irregular, unscheduled, overtime duty with the employee generally
being responsible. for recognizing, without supervision, circumstances
,which require him to remain on duty, shall receive premium pay
for this duty an an annual basis instead of premium pay prorided
by other provisions of this subchapter, except.for regularly scheduled
overtime, night, and Sunday duty, and for holiday duty Premium
pay unuler this paragraph is determined as an appropriate pcr-
centage, not less than 10 per centum nor more than 25 per centurn,
of such part of the rate of basic pay for the position as does not
exceed the minimum rate of basic pay for GS-to, by taking into
consideration the frequency and duration of irregular unscheduled
overtime duty required in the position.
Chapter 59: ALLOWANCES
SUBCHAPTER IV.-MISCELLANEOUS ALLOWANCES
5941. Allowances based on living costs and conditions of environment; em-
ployces stationed outside continental United States or in Alaska.
[.5942. Allowance based on duty on California offshore islands or at Nevada
Test Site.]
5940. Allowance based on duty at remote worksites.
5913. Foreign currency appreciation allowances.
5944. Illness and burial expenses; native employees in foreign countries.
3945. Notary public commission expenses.
5946. Membership fees; expenses of attendance at meetings; limitations.
5947. Quarters, subsistence, and allowances for employees of the Corps of Engineers,
Department of the Army, engaged in floating plant operations.
* * * * * * *
[? 5942. Allowance based on duty on California offshore islands or
at Nevada Test Site.
[Notwithstanding section 5536 of this title, an employee who is
assigned to duty, except temporary duty, on one of the California
offshore islands or at the United States Atomic Energy Commission
-Nevada Test Site, including the Nuclear Rocket Development
Station, is entitled, in addition to pay otherwise due him, to an allow-
ance of not to exceed $10 a day. However, the allowance shall be
paid under regulations prescribed by the President establishing the.
rates at which the allowance will be paid and defining the areas and
groups of positions to which the rates apply.]
? 5942. Allowance based on duty at remote worksites
Notwithstanding section 5586 of this title, an employee of an Executive
department or independent establishment who is assigned to duty, except
temporary duty, at a site so remote from the nearest established communities
or suitable places of residence as to require an appreciable amount of
expense, hardship, and inconvenience on the part of the employee in
commuting to and from his residence and such worksite is entitled, in
addition to pay otherwise due him, to an allowance of not to exceed $10
a day. The allowance shall be pail under regulations prescribed by the
President establishing the rates at which the allowance will be paid and
defining and designating those sites, areas, and groups of positions to
which the rates apply.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 3clA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
? 5947. Quarters, subsistence, and allowances for employees of
the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army,
engaged in floating plant operations
(a) An employee of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army,
engaged in floating plant operations may be furnished quarters or sub-
sistence, or both, on vessels, without charge, when the furnishing of the
quarters or subsistence, or both, is determined to be equitable to the em-
ployee concerned, and necessary in the public interest, in connection with
such operations.
(b) Notwithstanding section 5536 of this title, an employee entitled
to the benefits of subsection (a) of this section while on a vessel, may be
paid, in place of these benefits, an allowance for quarters or subsistence,
or both, when-
(1) adverse weather conditions or similar circumstances beyond
the control of the employee or the Corps of Engineers prevent trans-
portation of the employee from shore to the vessel or
(2) quarters or subsistence, or both, are not available on the vessel
while it is undergoing repairs.
(c) The quarters or subsistence, or both, or allowance in place thereof,
may be furnished or paid only under regulations prescribed by the Secre-
tary of the Army.
SECTION 3552(a) OF TITLE 39, UNITED STATES CODE
? 3552. Automatic advancement by step increases.
[(a) (1) Each employee subject to the Postal Field Service Schedule,
each employee subject to the Rural Carrier Schedule, and each em-
ployee subject to the Fourth Class Office Schedule who has not reached
the highest step for his position shall be advanced successively to the
next hi her 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
[()3) to step 8 and above-at the beginning of the first pay
period following the completion of one hundred and fifty-six
calendar weeks of satisfactory service.
[(2) The receipt of an equivalent increase during any of the waiting
periods specified in this subsection shall cause a new full waiting period
to commence for further step increases.]
(a) (1) Each employee subject to the Postal Field Service Schedule and
each employee subject to the Rural Carrier Schedule who has not reached
the highest step for his position shall be advanced 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 26 calendar weeks of satis-
factory service; and
(B) to steps 8 and above-at the beginning of the first pay period
following the completion of 52 calendar weeks of satisfactory service.
(2) The receipt of an equivalent increase during any of the waiting
periods specified in this subsection shall cause a new full waiting period
to commence for further step increases.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/q6: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(3) An employec'subject to the Postal Field Service Schedule who returns
to a position he formerly occupied at a lower level may, at his request,
have his waiting periods adjusted, at the time of his return to the lower
level, as if his service had been continuous in the lower level.
ACT OF MAY 13, 1955
(69 Stat. 48; Public Law 35, 84th Cong.)
[?,N ACT
[To authorize the'. furnishing of subsistence and quarters without charge to
employees of the Corps of Engineers engaged on floating plant operations
[Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstand-
ing the provisions of section 3 of the Act of March 5, 1928, employees
of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, engaged on
floating plant operations may be furnished subsistence and/or quar-
ters on vessels without charge whenever messing and/or quartering are
determined to be equitable to the employees and to be necessary in the
public interest in connection with such operations. Any such sub-
sistence and quarters shall be furnished in accordance with standards
prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.]
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
SEPARATE VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM L.
SCOTT ON H.R. 13000
The concept of a permanently established Federal Employee Salary
Commission appears sound and this is one of the reasons I voted in
favor of bringing H.R. 13000 before the House for consideration.
However, it seems to me that the Salary Commission should be a.n
advisory agent for the President and the Congress, which should
gather and study facts concerning comparability between Federal em-
ployees and their counterparts in private industry, and that its recom-
mendations should not become effective until legislation is passed by
the Congress. In the event the bill is amended to provide that the Com-
mission be advisory, there would be no need for an arbitration board,
which would only delay or obscure whatever action is needed to be
taken by the Chief Executive and the Congress.
The bill, as written, bypasses the President, who I believe should re-
tain his responsibility and authority to recommend salary adjustments
for Federal employees, which affect the overall budgetary require-
ments of the Government. Moreover, the Congress with its obligation
to appropriate funds and act upon the overall budget, should not
abandon, for all practical purposes, its control over the salaries for
Federal employees, which have considerable effect on the budget.
While this measure relates only to civilian employees, there will also
be an effect on military salaries as the civilian salaries are adjusted.
In addition, I cannot see how the Congress can recommend pay in-
creases, as provided in the bill, for postal employees without giving
the same treatment to the classified employees. While I would not deny
that postal employees should receive fair pay and benefits, I. do feel
that it should not be at the expense of other Federal employees, who
serve with equal dedication.
WILLIAM L. SCOTT,
Member of Congress.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
MINOIIITT VIEWS ON H-l,. 13000
B t any objective standard, 11.11. 1 000 defies fiscal integrity and
administrative commonsense. Certainly, it does not do justice to the
high caliber of legislative product ion of our distinguished committee.
Our reconuaaen(lation that the bill be rejected is made in behalf of
the classified and postal employees against whom it discriminates and
the American taxpayer.
We oppose the enactment of this bill for the following reasons:
(1) It destroys the authority and responsibility of the= President in
Federal eniplovees' pay detenninativas. Under this bill, the Chief
Executive would be powerless to deal with this vital executive
function.
(2) It places the Congress in a subordinate and almost meaningless
role in governing the tremendous expenditures required for Federal
salary adjusunents.
(3) The provisions of the bill relating to congressional disapproval
Of wlary inereaxes are a sad rehask of the same scheme under which
the salaries of cambers of Congress can he increased without any
opportunitba! for a congressional vote. The bill provides for the sub-
tnission of proposed salary adjustments to the Congress on February
I of each year, and then gives either House 30 days in which to adopt
a resolution or disapproval. In the opening days of a new Congress,
the House committee having jurisdiction of such a resolution would
probably not be organized within this time period and, therefore,
could not even consider a resolution-as we all learned when the recom-
mendations of the Coin inission on Executive. Legislative, and Judicial
Salaries were submitted to the 91st Congress. And presuming that. the
conunittees are disposed to consider at resolution of disapproval, a
handful of 14 :Menu tiers of the House or seven Members of the Senate
may prevent their respective bodies from voting for or against the
recomnaendat ions of the Salary Commission.
(-t) It is discrianinaatorv against classified employees, Foreign Serv-
iee employees. and physicians, dentists, and nurses in the Depai?ttnetat
(if Medicine and Surterv- of the Veterans' Administration. The bill
excludes these employees from the October two-step pay increase
gtauteci etnploveesin the first- i i levels of the postal field service. It also
excludes theme from accelerated advancement provisions which apply
only to postal workers.
(:a) The function of the Federal Employees Salary Commission
provided in the bill is negated by the creation of a Board of Arbitra-
tions which may overrule the action of does Comnunission by appeals
to it from rifts member of the Salary Commission. There is little clues-
tion that the language of the bill encourages the procedure of auto-
matically appealing every recommendation simply for the purpose of
forcing further negotiations.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : VA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
(6) The bill discriminates against postal supervisors who occupy
positions above level 11 of the postal field service and, by inducing
compression in the postal pay schedule, creates a chain of inequities
for all employees. What, for example, will happen to postal. em-
ployees whose new rates will exceed the maximum step (step 12)-
and there are 35,000 such employees in PFS-5 alone? Will not the
indefinite presence of employees in excess rates build up demand for
equal treatment by employees advancing at an accelerated rate to
step 12? Does this mean we will, in the end, have 14 steps in the PFS
schedule?
(7) Proponents of the bill fail to recognize the tremendous infla-
tionary effect this legislation will have on our economy.
The only identifiable costs are those attached to the accelerated step
increase and the two-step October increase for postal employees, as
shown in the following table :
ESTIMATE OF COST EFFECT ON H.R. 13000
]In millions]
PFY
PFY
Cost per
annum when
fully
1970
1971
implemented
Accelerated step increase:
PFS (all)
---------------- -----------------------------------------
$194.8
$400.9
----------
Ruralcarriers
-------------------------------------------------------
10.7
21.3
-------
Postmasters, 4th class-------------------------------------------------------
1.5
2.9
2-step increase:
PFS (1-11) -------------------------------------------------- $240.0
329.6
339.2
Rural carriers------------------------------------------------- 12.7
16.9
16.9
Postmasters, 4th class -------_-------------------------------- 1.5
2.0
2.0
Total ----------------------------------------------------- 254.2
348.5
358.1
PFS-12 and above-credit not to exceed 1 step--------------------------------------
4.2
4.3
Recap:
PFS (all)-
-------------------------------------------------
240.0
528.6
744.4
-
Rural carriers-------------------------------------------------
12.7
27.6
38.2
Postmasters, 4th class ----------------_--------_-------------
1.5
3.5
4.9
Total ------------------------------------------------------
254.2
559.7
787.5
None of the fiscal year 1970 costs are budgeted. In addition to these
costs, the bill calls for untold amounts in the form of January 1970
pay increases for some 2 million Federal employees in the four statu-
tory pay systems. Added to this, under the terms of Public Law 90-
207, the adjustments would apply also to military personnel. A salary
increase of 1 percent now costs $433 million annually. Therefore, even a
5-percent increase in January 1970 would cost over $2 billion. The
legislation makes no attempt to provide the revenues for these expen-
ditures. If the majority members were consistent, they would have in-
cluded the recommendations of the Johnson administration for postal
rate increases to cover the costs attributable to the new benefits for
postal employees. The total effect is inflationary, and the proponents
of this measure would better serve the interests of Federal employees
by stemming inflation rather than feeding it.
(8) The irregular committee procedure under which this legisla-
tion comes to the floor of the House has prevented full consideration
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01441 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
of the measure. The bill was propelled through the committee in less
than 1 hour after having failed to receive adequate consideration by
either the Subcommittee on Compensation or the full Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service. In fact, the full committee earlier had
returned the bill to the subcommittee for the purpose of gathering
additional information, however, these instructions were ignored.
(9) The bill authorizes windfall pay increases retroactive to the
1st of January of each year beginning in 1970 regardless of when such
increases are finally approved. This will require annual supplemental
appropriations of several hundred million dollars which will adversely
affect the budget of any President.
The simple fact i~r that 11.1. I.3000 denies the President his constit u-
t onal right to administer the affairs of the executive branch by rennov-
in.q from his jurisdiction any control over setting the ?ay of Federal
employees. The final recommendations of the Federal Fanployec Coin-
Inission or the Board of arbitration become effective without the
President's recommendation and without regard to the scale of na-
tional prioritiesestahlished through hisannual budget.
We do not subscribe at all to the proposition, advanced by the chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Compensation, that pay increases for
Federal employees should be as "automatic as the payment, of interest
on the national debt." To suggest this analogy shows an unfortunate
disregard for the role of the President, who is the head of the Federal
Etablishnient and is responsible for managing the national debt and
curbing inflation.
The membership of the Federal Employee Salary Commission
under II.R. 13000, and the rights of its members bely its avowed pur-
pose for existence. Where are its public members? Who brings im-
partiality to its deliberations? The Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission, as Chairman of the Salary Commission, would, in normal
circumstances be expected to play an impartial role and, if necessary,
to cast time deciding vote in tie situations. However= he is not given the
opportunity to play this role because there is nothing definitive about
the actions of the Commission. Any member can challenge the deci-
sions of the Commission, by alleging nonconformity with pay-setting
policy. How does this freedom of action square with the role of the
Commission as a factfinding body? In truth, it will not be allowed
to find any facts that an employee organization member concludes are
not agreeable to his membership. If he believes, and there is ood
reason to assume so, that he would get a better break from the Federal
Employee Salary Board of Arbitration, there would be every induce-
ment. to appeal to the Board.
During the recent hearings on proposals to reform the Postal Es-
tablishment, members of our committee suggested that setting pay by
congressional action subjects them to severe pressures and counter-
pressures not conducive to development of a rational pay structure.
Since the four congressional members will dominate the Federal Em-
ployee Salary Board of arbitration, these pressures will be concen-
trated on them. History has shown that their decisions will be made
on the basis of politic-,if pressures and not on the basis of factual find-
ings. Insofar as Federal pay is concerned, does this guarantee im-
partiality? We think not.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : cb4-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
We are unable to see what purpose is to be served by selection of
a member of the American Arbitration Association as Chairman, ex-
cept to give an unwarranted appearance of impartiality to the Board,
which in fact will be dominated by the congressional members. It is,
rather curious to see the American Arbitration Association embraced
in this instance by several members who criticized its employment
under the Postmaster General's new advisory system for selecting
postmasters. And finally, the sad thing about the decision of this
Board is that it is binding on the Commission, binding on the Presi-
dent, and, in fact, binding on the Congress and the American
taxpayers.
Enactment of this bill will make it possible for postal employees
to reach "top pay" in 8 years. The argument for this kind of accelera-
tion is that it takes too long-21 years-for employees in PFS-6 and
below to reach the maximum step in their level. The salary ranges
for postal employees have varied between short and long spans over
the years. Prior to 1945, there were five annual steps for clerks and
carriers who thus reached "top pay" in 4 years. The Congress ex-
panded the range to 11 annual steps, and gave three additional steps
for "faithful and meritorious" service, later converted to longevity
steps after 13, 18, and 25 years of postal service. Then it was argued
that it took too long to reach "top pay" and the range was cut succes-
sively to nine annual steps, and then to seven annual steps, with three
longevity increases.
In 1962, we heard the argument again that there were few promo-
tional opportunities for clerks and carriers and that it was unfair for
them to exhaust the opportunity to earn additional steps after 6 years
in grade. The Congress agreed and extended the pay range to 12 steps
over a 21-year span, thus embracing the longevity steps, increasing
their value, and, in effect, adding two more.
Now the proponents of H.R. 13000 say that it takes too long to
reach "top pay," so it is proposed to reduce the time to reach "top
pay" to 8 years. In spite of the position the proponents of the bill take
on this issue, there is no comparable treatment in the legislation for
classified employees. Surely reason demands that, in legislation as
broad as this, the interest of all Federal employees be fairly considered.
By far the worst provision of the bill relates to congressional action
on recommendations of the Federal Employee Salary Commission.
This section provides that failure of the Congress to act within 30 days
will secure approval of Federal employee pay increases automatically
each year beginning in 1970. We cannot emphasize too strongly that
our colleagues examine the mechanics of this system. It does no more
than pay lipservice to any substantive congressional action. Our ex-
perience with the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial
Salaries tells us that the voice of the Congress in Federal employee
pay adjustments will be reduced to a peep.
We believe that if Congress proposed to enact permanent law on this
subject, we should remove any doubt as to whether the legislative
branch can vote affirmatively with respect to pay increases for Federal
employees. To do otherwise, as provided under language of H.R.
13000, merely leaves us in a position of having to take the blame
for any action of the Salary Commission without an opportunity to
vote affirmatively with respect to its recommendations.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
 Approved For Release 2006/01131 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4
The action of the majority in approving II.R. 13000 is an attempt
to place a mantle of respectability around a strictly political effort.
If there were a Democrat administration the majority would never try
to ram this bill through Congress. This is an act of fiscal irresponsi-
bility and an attempt. to embarrass the present administration.
II.R. 13000 is so defective and so poorly conceived that any attempt
to rorrcct its provisions by rewriting the bill an the floor of the House
would be useless. Therefore, we recommend simply that the measure
be defeated.
11. R. Giaoss,
Member of Congress.
EDWARD J. D uN%,1NsKi,
Member of Congress.
O
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070004-4