SENATORS VOTE U.S. PAY RISE

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4
Release Decision: 
RIPPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
47
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
April 14, 2005
Sequence Number: 
13
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
NSPR
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4.pdf7.81 MB
Body: 
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 THE WASHINGTON PO T T Senators Vote U.S. Pay Rise Debate Sharp On Free Hand For President business of setting federal- local prevailing rate pay sys- military pay. It. provides for tems, and said its. cost would people. After the unexpectedly tough debate, the administra- tion-backed bill was cleared in a close 40-to-35 vote. In the House, leaders have promised .quick action on the bill, which is racing against a Jan. 3 con- gressional adjournment dead- line. Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss.) was one of the members who hit at the bill, which he said While pay-fixing from 1972 onward would be based on private industry data gathered by the Labor Department, Mr. Nixon has wide latitude to set the , 1971 amount:, Na- could x'eeommend any. percentage ltl, . crease up to 6 per cent, sub-, -ject to a veto by Congress. . j ` ?wi11 be sever`ll weeks, hg- j fare- tie ' ' 1971 raise is an nounced. The legislation by Rep. Mor- ris K. Udall (D-Ariz.) is a of an act- i d vers on By Mike Causey revampe Washington Post Staff writer ministration bill aimed at tak- ing Congress out of the pay- The Senate cleared a $2.2 setting procedure. Congress billion federal civilian-mili- has been setting federal tary pay raise last night de- salaries since the birth of the spite bitter objections that bureaucracy, and many meni- bers last night seemed re- it is a permanent blank luctant to let go of the purse- check for the President tostrings. On the roll call, 13 of set salaries of 4.3 million the first 14 votes went against the bill." civil service and military While federal salaries are federal workers, and. com- parable increases for military people. About 300,000 in this area would get the January raises. cRiriery that would" be con- trolled by the executive branch of government. This bill is epect~ed to re- sul in a pay raise of about 6 -Der cent for all white-collar supposed to be linked to coin- parable industry wages, past pay disputes have been bog- ged down in political battles, and the legislative process has taken so long that most raises were out-of-date when finally approved. Although Mr. Nixon is cer- tain to sign this pay raise bill, he is expected to veto a some- what similar pay raise-reform package for the 800,000 blue- collar employees cleared earli- er by Congress. The. adminis- require the Defense Depart- ment to lay off an additional 17,000 workers next year. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 December 12, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 16683 Senator, as a citizen of this country, and as a father of small children, I think that the Senate and the country owe a great debt to the distinguished Senator from Utah, and that generations of young people for many years to come will be well served by the excellent efforts which he has put forth, here in the Sen- ate, in trying to do something to curb cigarette smoking, which is indeed, as the Senate has acknowledged by its votes today, harmful to health. I hope, Mr. President, that his efforts will be successful in the conference, be- cause I think the work he has done is most admirable. Mr. M unanimo into exe i nominat reported cleared. The P objectio n The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the Senate "GS-1------ ----------- $ , $4,180 $4315 $4,450 $4,585 EXECUTIVE SESSION GS-2----------------- GS-3--------------- -- 4 534 5,115 5,285 4,836 5,455 5,625 5,795 GS-4 ------------------ 5,744 5,935 6,126 6,317 6,508 I ask President ANSFIELD Mr GS-S ------------------ 6,424 6,638 6,852 7,066 7,280 . . , GS-6 ------------- 7,155 7,394 7,633 7,872 8,111 us consent that the Senate go ------- GS-7----------------- 7,945 8,201 8,475 8,740 9,005 cutive business to consider two GS-8-------------------- 8,788 9,081 9,374 9,667 9,960 ons now at the desk, which were GS-9-------------------- GS-10 --------- 9,694 10,560 10,017 10,912 10,340 11,264 10,663 11,616 10,986 11,968 and have been earlier today GS-11---------------- _ 11,568 11,954 12,340 12,726 13,112 , GS-12------------------ 13,789 14,249 14,709 15,169 15,629 GS-13 _ ----- 16,127 16,665 17,203 17,741 18,279 RESIDING OFFICER. Without GS-14 -- -------------- 18,903 19,533 20,163 20,793 21,423 it is so ordered GS-15_______ 21,805 22,532 23,259 23,986 24,713 , . GS-16----------------- 25,044 25,879 26,714 27,549 28,384 GS-17------------------- 28,976 29,942 30,908 31,874 32,840 GS-18--- -------------- 33,495 DEPARTMENT OF STATE The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael Collins, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of State. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. AMBASSADOR TO THE MALAGASY REPUBLIC The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Anthony D. Marshall, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordi- nary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Malagasy Re- public. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified of the confirmation of these nominations. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. LEGISLATIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mt President, I ask unanimous consent` that the Senate re- sume the consifteraaion of legislative business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so-ordered. "FEDERAL SALARY ACT OF 1969 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of all Senators, I am about to bring up what will perhaps be the last legislative act of the Senate, apart from appropriation bills, at this time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of Calendar No. 577, H.R. 3.3000, and that it be laid down and made the pending business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title. (b) Except as provided in section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, the rates of basic pay of officers and employees to whom the General Schedule set forth in the amend- ment made by subsection (a) of this section applies shall be initially adjusted, as of the effective date of this section, as follows: (1) If the officer or employee is receiving basic pay immediately prior to the effective date of this section at one of the rates of a grade in the General Schedule, he shall re- ceive a rate of basic pay at the corresponding rate in effect on and after such date. (2) If the officer or employee is receiving basic pay immediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate between two rates of a grade in the General Schedule, he shall receive a rate of basic pay at the higher of the two corresponding rates in ef- fect on and after such date. (3) If the officer or employee is receiving basic pay immediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate in excess of the maximum rate for his grade, he shall receive his existing rate of basic pay increased by the amount of increase made by his section in the maximum rate for his grade. (4) If the officer or employee, immediately prior to the effective date of this section, is receiving, pursuant to section 2(b) (4) of the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of 1955, an existing aggregate rate of pay deter- mined under section 208(b) of the Act of September 1, 1954 (68 Stat, 1111), plus sub- proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That this Act may be cited as the "Fed- eral Salary Act of 1969". SEC. 2. (a) The General Schedule contained in section 5332(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: Annual rates and steps 6 7 8 9 10 sequent increases authorized by law, he shall receive an aggregate rate of pay equal to the sum of his existing aggregate rate of pay on the day preceding the effective date of this section, plus the amount of increase made by this section in the maximum rate of his grade, until (A) he leaves his position, or (B) he is entitled to receive aggregate pay at a higher rate by reason of the operation of this Act or any other provision of law. When such position becomes vacant, the aggregate rate of pay of any subsequent appointee thereto shall be fixed in accord- ance with applicable provisions of law. Sub- ject to clauses (A) and (B) of the immedi- ately preceding sentence of this subpara- graph, the amount of the increase provided by this section shall be held and considered for the purposes of section 208(b) of the Act of September 1, 1954, to constitute a part of the existing rate of pay of the employee. SEC. 3. (a) Section 3542(a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows : . "(a) There is established a basic compen- sation schedule for positions in the postal field service which shall be known as the Postal Field Service Schedule and for which the symbol shall be 'PFS'. Except as pro- vided in sections 3543 and 3544 of this title, basic compensation shall be paid to all em- ployees in accordance with such schedule. $4,720 $4,855 $4,990 $5,125 95,893 5,965 6,135 6,305 6,475 6,645 6,699 6.890 7,081 7,272 7,463 7,494 7,708 7,922 8,136 8,350 8,350 8,589 8,828 9,067 9,306 9,270 9,535 9,800 10,065 10,330 10 253 10,546 10,839 11,132 11,425 11,309 11,632 11,955 12,278 12,601 12,320. 12,672 13,024 13,376 13,723 13,498 13,984 14,270 14,656 15,042 16,089 16,549 17,009 17,469 17,929 18,817 19,355 19,893 20,431 20,969 22,053 22,683 23,313 23,943 24,573 25,440 26,167 26,894 27,621 28,348 29,219 30,054 30,889 31,724 ______- ----------------------------------- -__--- - 1--------------- $4,703 $4,860 $5,017 $5,174 2_______________ 5,084 5,254 5,424 5,594 3_______________ 5,498 5,681 5,864 6,047 4_______________ 5,943 6,141 6,339 6,537 5_______________ 6,424 6,638 6,852 7,066 6_______________ 6,942 7,174 7,406 7,638 7_______________ 7,504 7,755 8,006 8,257 8_______________ 8,117 8,387 8,657 8,927 9______________ 8,773 9,065 9,357 9,649 10______________ 9,466 9,781 10,096 10,411 11____ _ 10,414 10,761 11,108 11,455 12______________ 11,568 11,954 12,340 12,726 13______________ 12,856 13,284 13,712 14,140 14 -------------- 14,279 14,755 15.231 15,707 15______________ 15,714 16,237 16,760 17,283 16______________ 17,459 18,040 18,621 19,202 17______________ 19,391 20,038 20,685 21,332 18____ 21,333 22,044 22,755 23,466 19______________ 23,467 24,249 25,031 25,813 20____ 26,071 26,940 27,809 28,678 21______________ 28,976 29,942 30,908 31,874 $5,331 $5,488 $5,645 $5, 802 $5,959 $6,116 $6,273 $6,430 5,764 5,934 6,104 6,274 6,444 6,614 6,784 6,954 6,230 6,413 6,596 6,779 6,962 7,145 7,328 7,511 6,735 6,933 7,131 7,329 7,527 7,725 7,923 8,121 7,280 7,494 7,708 7,922 8,136 8,350 8,564 8,778 7,870 8,102 8,334 8,566 8,798 9,030 9,262 9,494 8,508 8,759 9,010 9,261 9,512 9,763 10,014 10,265 9,197 9,467 9,737 10,007 10,277 10,547 10,817 ---- 9,941 10,233 10,525 10,817 11,109 11,401 ---------------- 10,726 11,041 11,356 11,671 11,986 12,301 ---------------- 11,802 12,149 12,496 12,843 13,190 13,537 ----------------- 13,112 13,498 13,884 14,270 14,656 15,042 ----------- 14,568 14,996 15,424 15,852 16,280 16,708 ---------------- 16,183 16,659 17,135 17,611 18,087 18,563 -------------- _-. 17,806 18,329 18,852 19,375 19,898 20,421 _______________ 19,783 20,364 20,945 21,526 22,107 22,688 ---------------- 21,979 22,626 23,273 23,920 24,567 25,214 ---------------- 24,177 24,888 25,599 26,310 27,021 27,732 ---------------- 26,595 27,377 28,159 28,941 29,723 30,505 ______-__-____ 29,547 30,416 31,285 32,154 --------------------------------- 32,840 ------------------------------------------------------- Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE December 1.2, 1 f (b) Section `3(a) f ti':c 39, United as the Rural Carrier Schedule and for which :tates Code, is ended to read as follows: the symbol shall be 'RCS'. Compensation ., la i There C' stablis,hed a basic oom- shall be paid to rural carriers in accordance oensation sched i which shall be known with such schedule. "RURAL CARRIER SCHEDULE "Per annum ral"s and sleix 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 ! iref1 comuensa- I ~i1 i it mile up i,.. ,..sees of I or eau; mile of 1 cute over Su.-- 1 c i he basic sold employee s :service Schedule lie immediately his sev'tlon steal (1I Fach other t*ie Postal Field a Agnld to the :osition which L. orlor to such ec 121 is offic' the Rural Carrie) .o the same nuns, which he had at :such elective da-- (3) If change. aheru ise occur . out regard to e! changes shall b1 a)rior to conve si;, (4) If the pile I basic compensa, such effective d._ steps of a grad whichever is apt rate of basic Ca of the two corm' and after such d:'' 151 If the o(I1 basic compensa' such effective d the maximum r. ecseive his exist. ion increased made by this se or his grade. S?,c. 4. Sectio: title 38. United grades and pay within the Del Surgery of the amended to rea "3 4107. Grades "(al The per ranges for posit.i of this title, ot3 rector. Deputy I Associate Deput ,shall be as follow "Class 1 class 2 Class 3 - Class 4 class 5 Class 6 Class / . Class 8. "SECTION 4103 SCHEDCLE "Assistant Chief Medical Director, $33.465. "Medical Director, $28.976 minimum to 12.840 maximum. "Dire' for of Nursing Service, $21,805. min- imum to $28,348 maximum. "Director of Chaplain Service, $21,805 min- boum to $28,348 maximum. "Chief Pharmacist. $21,805 minimum to $28.348 maximum. "Chief Dietitian, $21,805 minimum to $28348 maximum. Ili b) (1) The grades and per annum full- pay ranges for positions provided in para- g-uph (1) of section 4104 of this title shall be as lollewa Physician and Dentist Schedule "Director grade, $25,044 minimum to 831.724 maximum. "Executive grade, $23,273 minimum to $30,;x57 maximum. "Chief grade, $21,805 minimum to $28,348 rnaxlmurn. "Senior grade, $18,903 ndnimum to $24,573 maximum. "Intermediate grade, $16,127 minimum to 4'0.969 maximum. "Pull grade, $13.789 minimum to $17,929 maximum. "Associate grade, $11,588 minimum to 415.042 maximum. "Nurse Schedule Director grade, $18,903 mini- mum to $24.573 maximum. 'Chief grade, $16,127 minimum to $20,960 nlaxinium. "Senior grade. 313,789 minimum to $17,929 nlaxirrinnr. "Isltermet i.lte grade. $11,568 minimum to 5:5.042 maximum. "Full grads. $9.694 minimum to $12,601 maximum. "Associate grade, $8.358 minimum to 810,869 maximum. "Junior grade, $7,155 minimum to $9,306 a. taximum." 5EC. 5. (al The fourth sentence of section 4'.2 of the Foreign Service Act of 1948 (22 IT s C. 8671 Is amended to read as follows: "The per annum salaries of Foreign Service officers within each of the other classes shall be as fellow;: npensation of each officer ject to the Postal Field the Rural Carrier Sched- :or to the effective date of as determined as follows: and employee subject to ervice Schedule shall be as numerical step for his has attained immediately -Give date. and employee subject to schedule shall be assigned deal step for his position ned Immediately prior to in levels or steps would such effective date wlth- Ament of this Act, such Teemed to have occurred or employee is receiving n immediately prior to at a rate between two in either such schedule, cable, he shall receive a pensation at the higher ending steps In effect on t. or employee is receiving n immediately prior to at a rate in excess of for his grade, he shall rate of basic compensa- the amount of Increase on in the maximum rate 4107 (a) and (b) (1) of hates Code, relating to ales for certain positions tment of Medicine, and :grans' Administration, 18 as follows: 3 pay scale annum full-pay scale or 3 provided in section 4103 than Chief Medical Dr- .ef Medical Director, and Chief Medical Director, $3:,705 $32.762 t;. 867 25.696 2u. U99 20,769 ii. 127 16,665 11.233 13,674 10.928 11.292 9.272 9.581 1.945 8,210 (h) The secorl ;entenceof subsection (a) of section 415 of ich Act (22 U.S.C. 870(5) ) is amended to r1 I as follows: "The per an- -Class 1 $20 Class 2 16 Class 3 ... .. 13 plans4 Ii Class 5... 9 Class 6 ----- -- SL Class 7 7 Class 8 7 Class9 fit Class I(;__ _ 5 120. 159 $21.439 $22, 109 16,665 17,203 17,741 13.674 14.115 14.556 11.292 11.656 12,020 10. 227 10, 557 10,887 9.172 9.468 9,764 8, 227 9,492 8.757 7.378 7.616 7,854 6.618 6.831 7.044 5.935 6.126 6.317 $33,495 76. 525 S27.354 52e. 183 129, 012 529, 841 21.439 22,109 22.779 23.449 24.119 17.203 17.141 18.279 18.817 19.355 14,115 14.556 14,997 14.438 15.879 11.656 12, 1323 12.384 12.748 13.112 9,990 to. !99 10, 508 10. 817 11.126 8.475 8. 14U 9, U05 9.270 9, 535". num salaries of such staff officers and em- ployees within each claw; shall be as follows: $22,779 $23,449 524,119 $24,789 125,459 526.129 18.279 18.817 19.355 19.893 20,431 20.969 14.997 15.438 15.879 16. 320 16,761 17.272 12,384 12. 748 13.112 13, 476 13,840 14, 2M 11.217 11.54 7 11.887 12,207 12.537 12,667 10,060 10.356 10.652 10,948 11.244 11.540 9.022 9.287 9.552 9.917 10,082 10.341 8.092 8.330 8.568 8, 806 9,044 9.232 7.257 7,470 7,683 7.8% 8,109 8, 322 , 463'" 6- 508 6.699 6,890 7.381 7, 272 7,463- (c1 Fureicn Service officers, Reserve officers. (c and Foreign Service staff officers and em- ployees who are entitled to receive basic compensation immediately prior to the effec- tive date of this section at one of the rates provided by section 412 or 415 of such Act shall receive basic compensation, on and after such effective date, at the rate of their class determined to be appropriate by the Sceetarv of State. SEC. 6. The rates of pay of persons em- ployed by the county committees established pursuant to section Bib) of the Soil Con- servation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) shall be increased by amounts equal, as yearly as may be prac- tieahlp, to the Increases provided by section 2(a) of this Act for corresponding rates of basic nay SEC. 7. (al The rates of basic pay of assist- ant United States attorneys whose annual salaries are fixed pursuant to section 548 of title 28, United States Code, shall be in- creased by amounts equal, as nearly as may be practicable, to the increases provided by section 2(a) of this Act for corresponding rates of basic pay. (b) Notwithstanding section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C, 665), the rates of pay of officers and employees of the Federal Government and of the munici- pal government of the District of Columbia whose rates of pay are fixed by administra- tive action pursuant to law and are not otherwise Increased by this Act are hereby authorized to be increased, effective on the effective date of section 2 of this Act. by amounts not to exceed the increases pro- vided by this Act for corresponding rates of pay in the appropriate schedule or scale of pay. (c) Nothing contained In this section shall be held or considered to authorize any in- crease in the rates of pay of officers and em- ployees whose rates of pay are fixed and ad- justed from time to time as nearly as is con- sistent with the public Interest in accord- ance with prevailing rates or practices. (d) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the authority contained in any law pursuant to which rates of pay may be fixed by administrative action. Soc. 8 fa) The rates of basic compensa- tion of officers and employees in or under the judicial branch of the Government whose rates of compensation are fixed by or pur- suant to paragraph (2) of subdivision a or section 62 of the-Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 102(a) (21) . section 3656 of title 18, United States Code, the third sentence of section 603. section 8251c1, sections 671 through 675, and section 6041a) (5) of title 28. United States Code. Insofar as the latter section ap- plies to graded positions, are hereby in- creased by amount reflecting the respective applicable Increases provided by section 2(a) of this Act in corresponding rates of com- pensation for officers and employees subject to section 5:332 of title 5. United States Code. The rates of basic compensation of officers and employees holding ungraded positions .,nd whose salaries are fixed pursuant to such section 004, a) (5) may be Increased by the amounts reflecting the respective applicable Increases provided by section 2(a) of this s~ Act In corresponding rates of compensation f.ir officers and employees subject to section :53"2 of title 5. United States Code. Ibf The limitations provided by applicable law on tile ellective date of this section wi"fi respect to the aggregate salaries payable tS s+rre,aries and law clerks of circuit and dis- trict u(ittes are hereby increased by amounts which reflect the respective applicable in- creases provided by section 2(a) of this A in corresponding rates of compensation for officers and employees subject to section 5 12 of title 5, United States Code. (c) Section 753te) of title 28, United States Code (relating to the compensation )f court reporters for district courts). is amended by striking out the existing salary Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 December 1,2, roved Ford j~J/~31R P7? &3 000400070013-4 S 16685 limitation contained therein and inserting a new limitation which reflects the respective applicable increases provided by section 2 (a) of this Act in corresponding rates of compensation for officers and employees sub- ject to section 5332 of title 5, Unied States Code. SEC. 9. Section 5302 of title 5, United States Code, is amended- (1) by striking out the word "and" after the semicolon in paragraph (1) ; (2) by striking out paragraph (2) and in- serting in lieu thereof the following new paragraphs: "(2) appoint 4 representatives of organi- zations of employees of the Government of the United States, including 2 representa- tives of organizations of employees in the postal field service of the Post Office Depart- ment, to participate directly in all phases of evaluating data relating to pay comparabil- ity, and in the preparation and presentation of the report to the President; and "(3) present each year to the Congress a report on the comparison of Federal pay to private enterprise pay, and shall include in his report his recommendations for changes in the rates of pay or changes in salary struc- ture, alinement, or other characteristics of Federal pay as he deems to be in compliance with the provisions of section 5301 of this title.". SEc. 10 (a) In order to carry out the policy set forth in paragraph (2) of section 5301 of title 5, United States Code, the President shall, effective on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after July 1, 1970', adjust the current rates of basic pay, basic compensation, or salary which were ad- justed by the President under section 212(2) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (81 Stat. 634) by amounts equal, as nearly as may be practicable, to- (1) the amounts by which such rates are exceeded by rates of pay paid for the same levels of work in private enterprise as deter- mined on the basis of the 1969 annual sur- vey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics in accordance with the provisions of section 5302 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by section 9 of this Act; or (2) 3 percent; whichever is greater. Adjustments made by the President under this section shall have the force and effect of law. (b) The rates of pay of personnel subject to sections 210, 213 (except subsections (d) and (e), and 214 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967, 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 be- ginning on or after July 1, 1970, by amounts which are equal, insofar as practicable and with such exceptions as may be necessary to provide for appropriate relationships be- tween positions to the amounts of the ad- justments made by the President under sub- section (a) of this section, by the following authorities- (1) the President pro tempore of the Sen- ate, with respect to the United States Sen- ate; (2) the Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives, with respect to the United States House of Representatives; (3) the Architect of the Capitol, with re- spect to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; (4) the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, with re- spect to the judicial branch of the Govern- ment; and (5) the Secretary of Agriculture, with re- spect to persons employed by the county committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)). Such adjustments shall be made in such manner as the appropriate authority con- cerned deems advisable and shall have the force and effect of law. (c) The adjustments made by the Presi- dent under this section shall have the force and effect of law and shall be printed (1) in the Statutes at Large in the tame volume as public laws and (2) in the Federal Register and Included in the Code of Federal Regulations. (d) An increase in pay which becomes ef- fective under this section is not an equiva- lent increase in pay within the meaning of section 5335 of title 5, United States Code. or section 3552 of title 39, United States Code. (e) The rates of basic pay for employees paid under the statutory pay systems re- ferred to in subsection (a) shall be initially adjusted, as of the effective date of the ad- justment, under conversion rules prescribed by the President or by such agency as the President may designate. (f) Nothing in this section shall impair any authority pursuant to which rates of pay may be fixed by administrative action. (g) Any officer or employee of the Govern- ment receiving pay, compensation, or salary which is equal to, or less than, the salary rate for level V of the Executive Schedule in section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, shall not have his pay, compensation, or salary increased, by reason of the enact- ment of this section, to a rate in excess of the salary rate for such level V. SEC. 11. (a) This section, the first section, and sections 9 and 10 of this Act shall be- come effective upon the date of enactment. (b) Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of this Act shall become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after January 1, 1970. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, this bill has been cleared all the way around, so far as I know. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, may we find who the employees are who are covered by this bill? Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, the bill represents a kind of hard rock, common denominator, or compromise, which we have worked out with the administra- tion, with the House, and with our col- leagues in this body on both sides of the aisle. It would apply to most employees, both classified and postal employees. The legislation that came from the House applied primarily as a pay in- crease to postal employees. The com- mittee has sometimes been caught where the postal employees get an increase, and then the classified employees demand the same, or the classified employees get an increase, and then the postal em- ployees demand the same. Our committee felt it was better under the comparability law to get them on an even keel and treat them generally the same. The bill, as it came from the House, would have paid the postal employees an increase of 5.4 percent retroactive to Oc- tober. 1. The committee bill would give all employees, both the classified and postal, at the level of GS-9 or PFS-10, a 4-percent adjustment, effective January 1. This will be graduated to a lower per- centage at each $5,000 interval; that is, from $10,000 to $15,000, 3 percent; from $15,000 to $20,000, 2 percent; and grade 15 would receive 1 percent. The super- grades would receive none. The effort to arrive at this figure was influenced heavily by the President's in- terest in holding down a very large jump at this time that might contribute ad- versely to some of the inflationary forces in this country. I repeat: this was negotiated with great care, all around, and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The measure further includes what was already a part of the comparability mechanism, and that is the comparabil- ity adjustment for Federal workers in the drive to bring the Federal scale into a relatively comparable position with the private sector. That adjustment, un- der the proposal, would occur on July 1, 1970. What that means is this: The Bureau of Labor Statistics has just given us a reading, this week, reminding us that the adjustment in the private sector between 1968 and 1969 has been an increase of 5.8 percent. In view of the fact that we are al- ready 18 months behind that figure, it seemed to the committee rather more going from here? That is the reason for the 4-percent figure, as a holding action, on January 1, and the adjustment on July 1 would be comparability. Stricken from the bill was a complex mechanism for arriving at new salary ting an agreement on it. So again, I would, say this is a "bare-bones" bill. The bill is calculated to cost $300 mil- lion-plus in fiscal 1970, this current fiscal year. The July 1 adjustment would fall into the following fiscal year. . Mr. President, H.R. 13000 is a bill to increase the salaries of Federal employ- ees. Undoubtedly the Senate is very well aware of the controversy and complexity of the salary legislation during this ses- sion of Congress. The Post Office and Civil Service Committee in both the House and Senate have been holding hearings on pay legislation and postal modernization since Congress convened last January. After lengthy considera- tion, the House passed H.R. 13000 in mid- October. Since that time our committee has been deeply involved in an attempt to develop a pay bill which would re- solve the pressing need of salary in- creases for Federal employees and also go as far as possible toward satisfying the requirements of the present admin- istration, as well as the Congress, to hold the line on spending. The committee rec- ommends a complete substitute for the House bill. As passed by the House, this bill would do the following things: First of all, it provided a two-step promotion for all employees in the postal field service up through grade 11. That covers roughly 98 percent of the total postal work force. The increase amounted to 5.4 percent and would have cost about $300 million in the fiscal year 1970. Second, it established a permanent Federal Employee Salary Commission including seven members, four officers of the executive branch of the Government, and three representa- tives of employee unions. This Commis- sion would decide what Federal pay would be on the basis of comparability with private enterprise. If they could not reach an agreement, a board of arbitra- tion would make the final decision. Their first action would be taken early next year and would be made effective on Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 S 16686 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00040007 013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE December 12, 1969 January 1, 19':. An amendment to the bill which was ai opted on the floor of the House of Rep:, entatives required that the final deci, ? n be submitted to/the Congress for = itirmative action./ And finally, the bill nade changes in regard to pay benefi' for certain employees who work at note work sites or who are employed i floating plant opera- tions. A permaner provision for a salary conunission is rtainly deserving of very careful consid'' ation. To eliminate an- nual enactmer.c of pay legislation in my opinion, is a c, irabie goal. However, to create a come, lion which can recom- mend salary r >s and thus increase the Federal payr substantially without providing any thority for the President of the United ,aces or the Congress to exercise contrci s, to say the least, an un- usual approacr Certainly Federal em- ployees must : ay a larger role in the determination Pf pay than they have heretofore. I s:, this because I am confi- dent that the t' 'st Office and Civil Serv- ice Committer vill give further consid- eration to son proposal along this line. In place of the louse bill, we recommend an across-the Loard increase for the classified and costal employees of the Federal Gove, ; ment of 4 percent for most employ, and then graduated downward in 1! , higher paying grades to 1 percent at ti? GS-15 level, and no in- crease at all ;,I 3ve that level. My nick- name for this rinciple Is "bare bones." I am convinc . and I believe that my colleagues on + ie Post Office and Civil Service Comm, ee. including the distin- guished, hard- orkingr, and most cooper- ative ranking epublican member. Sen- ator FONG, at a with me that Federal salaries, parti larly in the lower levels, are in bad nee if adjustment upward. The salarie we are paying our em- ployees today re based on comparabil- ity with priv., a enterprise as of July 1968. Since the time the Consumer Price Index has rise? by 7.4 percent. and sal- aries in the pri r,te sector of the economy have risen 5.8 rcent. We cannot be fair to our emplo' s and delay pay legisla- tion any lenf - . At the same time, the committee ha lone everything it can to conform to tl. needs for fiscal restraint at this time. I , Light add that the Senate committee hrr_. shown prudence in the enactment of r ery pay bill that we have passed since tC enactment of the salary reform bill bi + : in 1962. Our record for treating empi?~ ees fairly is matched by our record of riding the line on spend- ing. We shall ( )ntinue to do so. The commi! !e also recommends that rather than c Ling back in January and starting to we; on another pay bill, the law be chang,- to authorize the Presi- dent to adjust alaries next July on the basis of com rability as then known with private e erprise. In evaluating the data study ff setting salary rates, we recommend t t employees be given the right of repre ztation in these delibera- tions. This wc: d be accomplished by au- thorizing the t 'esident to designate em- ployee union r presentatives to sit In on and directly rticipate in the prepara- tion of the cr nparabillty report. They would not br appointed as employees; they would merely serve temporarily as advisers. We do recommend a 3-percent minimum for the July 1970 adjustment. That is all our bill does and that is why we call It "bare bones." I am personally inclined to think that this legislation is as "veto proof" as we could possibly make any bill that deals fairly with our 3 million civilian employees in this Gov- ernment. Let me cite just a couple of ex- amples. I know that many employees are disappointed that we cannot do more at this time, but our aim has been, from the very beginning, to get a pay raise enact- ed, not to make a grandstand play on fourth down just to make noise while adding nothing to the paycheck. Instead of granting the two-step increase for some postal employees which would have increased the payroll by $300 million, we have given an across-the-board Increase in the statutory rates applicable to all of the employees in the first nine grades of the general schedule of the Classification Act, and the first 10 grades of the postal salary schedule. The effect of that change is that, in the first place, It does not dis- criminate unfairly against classified em- ployees who were left completely out of the House bill, and it does not artificially inflate the payroll at a high cost and with no regard `for future pay adjustments, Our recommendation truly conforms to the principles of comparability by in- creasing pay schedules for the various kinds of jobs, rather than simply increas- ing the pay of employees on the payroll at the time the two-step increase is granted. This two-step jump for postal employees has been a critical point in our consideration of this legislation. In fairness to postal employees, I must say that I personally believe salary com- parability for postal employees has not been achieved and it will not be achieved until the criteria for private enterprise job comparisons are changed from the comparisons that are used today. It may be that we need a whole new look at postal pay and levels of jobs. It may be that postal letter carriers and clerks should be elevated to higher levels of pay or that the relationship between the postal field service levels and the grades of the classification act be eliminated entirely. The committee, in its deliberation on careful attention to this problem. How- ever, you do not solve the problem of proper classification and comparability by giving a two-step jump to employees on the payroll last October 1. That ap- proach is not new: a one-step jump was included in the 1962 Salary Act. A notable result of that was a special pay raise for some employees, dissension and bitter- ness between employees who got the raise and those who did not, and a permanent increase in the cost of Government by several hundred million dollars without any regard to salary comparability. If we are going to increase postal salaries in order to fulfill the policy of comparability, and to recruit and retain the best people available in the labor market, I think we should face the prob- lem squarely and consider a bill that does just that. I do not think it is wise to at- tempt to placate the wishes of one or two groups of employees for a one-shot, under-the-table, unaccounted-for pay raise. There are better and more straight- forward means of solving the problem. Another feature of our approach is that by enacting a 4-percent pay increase in the statutory schedules, next January, we will have narrowed the gap between Federal pay today and private enterprise pay last July. That "narrowing" will again be recognized next July, when the Presidential adjustments in pay reflect comparability increases over the rates of pay established January 1 rather than the rates of pay established last July 1, 1969. The effect of this adjustment in Jan- uary will be that the very serious and severely criticized problem of the time lag between the comparability survey and the effective date of salary adjustments will in part be solved. We now know, in December 1969, that employees in private industry were making nearly 6 percent more last July than they were July a year ago. By taking that difference into account in changing the pay schedule, we are in effect cutting the time lag very substantially for all employees in all agencies of the Government. Much testi- mony has been presented to our commit- tee suggesting the great need for catching up with comparability. It is significant, therefore, that we have in this bill elimi- nated some of that delay; and not for just some employees, but for most. Some administration critics have ex- pressed reservations about guaranteeing 3 percent next July. Their argument is that if comparability shows only a need for a 2-percent increase, only 2 percent should be given. The weakness in that argument Is that the comparability sur- vey, which will result in the President's decision next July, is based on June 1969. By establishing a basic 3-percent raise, we will again narrow the gap between Federal pay and private industry pay as those rates exist next July. To those who claim that next July's adjustment for postal workers should be only the differ- ence between 4 percent and the suggested 5.8 percent comparability figure for July 1969, recently released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I suggest that it is un- realistic and unfair to propose a 1.8 per- cent salary increase for some 700,000 postal workers next summer. Finally, the facts are that the Govern- ment's efforts, both in this Chamber and in the White House, to control inflation, to reduce the cost of money and to bring prices down have the greatest impact upon the average American who earns less than $10,000 a year and who suffers the most in a period of inflation. I just never have understood the economic sense of controlling inflation by denying the postal and classified workers a pay increase and making money virtually un- available for them to borrow. Wages in private enterprise have gone up nearly 6 percent, as evidenced by our Bureau of Labor Statistics' evidence. Those cold Consumer Price Index has gone up 71z percent, according to the same Bureau of Labor Statistics' evidence. Those cold realities compel the Congress to act for the people who need a pay raise the most. Our recommendation departs tempo- rarily from the principle of compara- Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 December 12, roved For~"~A/~31R 1e P7? 3 ,8000400070013-4 S 16687 bility in that the percentage increase is inverted. In the grades of pay where dis- parity between the Government and pri- vate enterprise is the greatest is where, in this bill, we give the least. Our answer to those deserving employees who are called upon to sacrifice comparability in the higher grades is that just 6 months later, the pay adjustment will reflect pri- vate enterprise rates for all grades through GS-15. To those employees in grades above GS-15 who receive no January increase, our view is simple. These salary rates begin at $23,000 a year and the crunch of inflation is not so severe. Employees of the Congress are also overlooked, but our employees re- ceived a 10-percent pay increase last July and most employees on Capitol Hill can receive pay increases without the neces- sity for having a law enacting it, and that is not true of a postal worker or a lawyer in the executive branch. The estimated cost resulting from the enactment of H.R. 13000 will be $363.5 million in fiscal year 1970-that is, from January through June. Beginning in fis- cal year 1971, including the increases to become effective by Executive order July 1, 1970, the additional cost will be $1,433,- 500,000. Under the provisions of Public Law 90-207, there will be a comparable increase in the salaries of members of the Armed Forces equal to the average per- centage increase in the general schedule of the Classification Act. It is my under- standing that the additional cost for military salaries beginning in fiscal year 1971, will be $1,367,000. Thus the total cost of the bill when fully effective, mili- tary and civilian, will be $2,800,500,000- roughly $2.8 billion. The cost of the committee bill is sub- stantially less than the cost of the bill recommended by the House of Represent- atives. The House bill, when fully effec- tive, would have resulted in an increase of $4 billion, $351 million in the Federal civilian and military payroll; so the Sen- ate committee bill is almost half the cost of the House bill. Time is of the essence. I ask the Sen- ate's approval of this bill in the hope that is can be speeded through Congress and presented to the President as soon as possible. I may ask my colleague the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. FONG) whether I have left something out of the basic reasons for the bill. Mr. FONG. Mr. President, this is a very minimal bill. The bill which came from the House, and which passed that body by a very large vote, would have cost approximately $6 billion-$5.910 bil- lion-for fiscal 1970 and 1971. This very minimal bill would cost only $3.5 billion. We have made a saving of over $2.4 bil- lion here. The cost for fiscal 1970, as far as civil- ian employees are concerned, is only $363 million. The cost for the military is $336 million. The total cost of the civilian payroll for 2 years would be $1.797 bil- lion. The total cost of the military pay- roll would be $1.703 billion. We have fought hard to keep this bill to a very low figure so that it would not meet with the veto of the President. We feel this bill is very minimal. It is mak- ing up for what is a real lag now. If we followed the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, employees would re- ceive, under the comparability statute, as of July 1, 1969, a 5.8 increase, this December; and we are only giving em- ployees under $10,000 4 percent, gradu- ated to 3 percent, 2 percent, and 1 per- cent. So we feel this is a very fine bill. I would like to congratulate the chair- man of the committee for bringing up this very excellent bill. Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I have just been asked whether this bill applies to legislative personnel here on the hill. It does not on the January 1 figure. It does not apply to legislative personnel. Mr. COOPER. Is this a $5 billion bill you are bringing up tonight? Mr. McGEE. The projection was over a 2-year period. As of January 1, it will be $363 million. Mr. COOPER. When does it become effective? Mr. McGEE. It becomes effective Jan- uary 1, with respect to the $363 million. The adjustment on July 1 would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 per- cent as a minimum. Mr. COOPER. What will be the total cost next year? Mr. McGEE. The $363 million would be a regular part of the salary. Mr. COOPER. Would that be for fiscal 1970? Mr. McGEE. That would be for fiscal 1970. Mr. COOPER. How much would it be for 1971? Mr. McGEE. Twice $363 million, plus whatever the executive would determine on July 1 was the rise in comparability figures. Mr. COOPER. Then there would be a further rise the next fiscal year? Mr. FONG. It is just for 2 years. Mr. McGEE. This takes in the military. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I do not know whether there is going to be a roll- call vote on this measure at this time of night, but I want to be recorded in oppo- sition. It is too late to comprehend all its ramifications and total cost on this short notice. Mr. McGEE. We brought out a bill after paring out everything that could be pared and still have a meaningful bill. Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 13000 the Federal pay bill now before us. The Members of this body will recall that in 1962 the grave problem of the loss of highly skilled Federal employees to private industry was presented to us. In addition, a severe lag of Federal civil- ian salaries behind those paid for com- parable work in the private sector of our economy was obvious. To counteract the loss of employees from the Federal Government for more lucrative positions in private industry and to insure that Federal employees were paid comparable salaries to their counterparts outside of government the Congress on September 27, 1962 approved by a vote of 72 to 3 what has been re- ferred to as the comparability princi- ple in the Federal classified and postal pay systems. This principle first adopted in 1962 and reaffirmed by the Congress and the President in 1964 and 1967 has helped tremendous in retaining employ- ees in the Federal service who receive their training and great experience in the Federal Government. This princi- ple has also been a significant factor in attracting highly competent personnel to the Government service. It has en- abled Government to go to the college campuses and compete favorably with private industry recruiters for the best minds that the U.S. colleges and uni- versities can produce. There is no greater service which Americans can render at this time than to serve their Nation through Govern- ment employment. The success of our many Federal programs can be traced directly to the highly competent staffs in the departments and agencies of our Federal Government and comparable pay with private industry has en- abled the Federal Government to be the leader that it is in all fields. The pledge that the Congress and the President made in 1962, 1964, and 1967 to keep Federal salaries abreast of those in private industry demanded that the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee bring to this body the Fed- eral salary bill we are now consider- ing. Under the system established in 1962 for bringing Federal salaries in line with those in private industry the Bureau of Labor Statistics was directed to make annual surveys of wages paid to the non- government employees of our country. I am advised by the Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics that they begin collecting the in- formation on private industry salaries in March and complete this work some- time in September. The average payroll reference period used by the BLS is June. On December 8, 1969, the BLS issued its first public press release on the salary data it gathered. The raw average figure for the lag of Federal salaries behind those in private industry is 5.7 percent. It must be emphasized that this is an average figure and will vary with each individual Federal pay level. The BLS press release means that as of 6 months ago Federal salaries were aver- aging 5.7 percent behind private indus- try. The bill we are now considering pro- vides for salary increases of 4 percent for all Federal employees now making below $10,000 per year; a 3-percent in- crease for those making above $10,000 but less than $15,000 a year; a 2-percent increase for those making above $15,000 but less than $20,000 a year; and a 1- percent increase for those in the GS-15 and PFS-18 pay levels. These increases would be effective January 1, 1970. All Federal employees over GS-15 and PFS- 18 will not receive any increase on Jan- uary 1. The January 1 increase is only a stop- gap measure to close the salary-lag gap for those in the lower levels of employ- ment. From the BLS figures it is ap- parent that the maximum increase of 4 percent on January 1 is still at least 1.7 percent behind private industry. The committee felt that since the compar- ability figures were available it would be unfair to delay a salary increase of be- tween 12 to 18 months. The pill also calls for a second-step Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 S 16688 increase to ac.,: July 1. 1970. Ti n come effective tt gered by an Exo the President on the Civil Servic Bureau of the B!, The amount oi based on the r,- Statistics figurt, 12 months after This 12-month the committee a o1 3 percent for i _ It is significant Federal Governri lagged at least I industry. Invario vate industry ar, given Federal en intervening mon t ing of informati,: of the Federal sa' inittee feels that position for once to the extent ti, year since the was adopted. This measure million Federal the bill has been of the Budget t.ri percent of the t: fiscal year 1970 elated cost of Ili. is 6.66 percent of for a total of $l.' It must be exp: tee attempted to costs of this met as possible and million Federal titled to this inei ' done the best jot? present circurnsta measure the Set: pledge to all Fed, shall be paid sale counterparts in l? I strongly ur?r approval of H.1 the Senate Post Committee. The PRESIDI P are no amendmr committee amen. on agreeing to ment in the natThe committee ture of a substil The YRESIDI* Lion is on the en: ment and the ti i The amendme: grossed and the time. The bill was r~ The PRESIDI r having been re:: t,itestion is. Shall The bill was p. The title was An act to adju.{i employees, and t Mr_ MANSFII, move to reconsicii bill was passed. Approved Foe ffiaj/31R~C~A- P7?SENATE0004000 ece nber 12, 1969 eve comparability on actual increase to be- it date would be trig- ;utive order Issued by fie recommendations of Commission and the get. the increase would be ned Bureau of Labor for June, 1969-or hey were gathered. lag was considered by i we voted to set a floor e July 1, 1970 increase. o this 3 percent that at salaries have always months behind private ly the increases in pri- vay above those finally ployees during the 12 is between the gather- and the effective date ry Increases. The com- t would like to be in a if not playing catchup t it has had to every imparability principle ects approximately 2.2 nployees. The cost of timated by the Bureau be approximately 3.37 al Federal payroll for $363,500,000. The esti- bill in fiscal year 1971 ayroll or $1,413.500,000 77.000.000. fined that the commit- old off as much of the ure in fiscal year 1970 11 do justice to the 2.2 nployees who are en- tse. We believe we have hat can be done under ices. By approving this ite will have kept its al employees that they es comparable to their ivate industry. my colleagues to vote 13000 as amended by ,Mee and Civil Service G OFFICER. If there is to be offered to the ment. the question is ie committee amend- e of a substitute. tmendment in the na- .e was agreed to. I OFFICER. The ques- )ssment of the amend- 'd reading of the bill. was ordered to be en- ill to be read a third Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I think the Senate ought to be aware of the strong efforts of Senator McGEE in behalf of this proposal. His splendid and outstanding work made possible an in- crease In pay for Federal classified and postal service workers. They are cer- tainly in his debt. This outstanding service performed by the able and dis- tinguished chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service was truly commendable. Mr. President, by necessity the senior Senator from Texas (Mr. YARBOROUGH) is away from the Senate today. In antici- pation that the bill may have been called up in his absence, he prepared a state- uient in behalf of the proposal. As the Senate knows, he Is the ranking major- ity member of the Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service and has long been a leader of efforts in behalf of all Fed- ti-al employees. I commend his thought- ful statement to the Senate and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point. "There being no objection the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: :-;TATEMEN1' or SSNATOR R.ALI'II W. YARBOROUGir Mr. President. as the ranking majority number of the Post Ofnce and Civil Service Committee. I rise In support of H.R. 13000. This bill would provide a four percent pay ncrease for the majority of our Federal Em- nn,yees. This pay increase would become gf- ._,tive January 1, 1970. I'he hill further provides for an extension the authority given the President in 1967 make pay increases on the basis of 1969 -nmparabiltty with private Industry effective July 1. 1970. The measure stipulates that the July increase may not be less than three ;tercent. The hill also creates a new Federal Em- ployee Salary commission which will be oom- :,osed of representatives from both manage- :uent and labor and will be for the purpose evaluating data relating to pay rates in - sinarahle Industries. although this bill does represent a positive .cep forward toward bringing our Federal t:'mployees into economic equality with in- dividuals employed in private industry, in my opinion the bill does not go far enough. I supported an increase of 5.4't. In pay for ,jr ~Federal Employees. I feel that such an reuse is both justified and necessary. How- the bill that is before us today is a step the right direction. Therefore, I urge all ' ilencues to ?Ive it their frill suuport. sion of business this evening, the Senate stand in adjournment until 10 o'clock Monday morning next. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPRO- PRIATIONS, 1970 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, the full Committee on Appropriations reported the Defense appropriation bill today. It will be the pending business at 10 o'clock Monday morning next. I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 15090 be laid before the Senate and made the pending business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title. The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. 15090) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations with amendments. PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATION- AL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTH- WEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES RE- LATING TO PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND REGULATORY MEASURES- REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION OF SECRECY Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous con- sent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from Executive I. 91st Congress, first session, the protocol to the Inter- national Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, transmitted to the Senate today by the President of the United States, and that the protocol, together with the President's message, be referred to the committee on foreign relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the RECORD. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserving the rir.ht to object, has that been cleared with the minority? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. No objection, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The message from the President is as follows: d the third time. 3 OFFICER. The bill the third time, the pass? sed. trended, so as to read: the salaries of Federal r other purposes." ,D. Mr. President, I the vote by which the ottDER''OR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY. DECEMBER 15, 1969, AT 10 A_M. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order for convening on tomorrow be vacated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclu- To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith a certified copy of the Protocol to the international Conven- tion for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Relating to Panel Membership and to Regulatory Measures. The Protocol is dated October 1. 1969. and was open for signature at Washington from Octo- ber 1. 1969. through October 15, 1969. on behalf of the 14 Governments parties to the International Convention for the Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For g~ 2006/01/ 1 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 '!'ESSION L RECORD - HOUSE 03 been critical might ?to a former Member of ;j the Democratic side of ,er whose credentials as Witch those of anybody on aide he aisle today-our former -,ague from the State of Michigan, ell Staebler. Neil Staebler has just returned from a personal-expense trip to Vietnam. Those urging that we withdraw uni- laterally from Vietnam should talk to Neil Staebler. Neil Staebler said unilateral with- drawal would end up in the worst blood bath that you could imagine in South Vietnam. Three million Catholics who fled from the Communist dictatorship in North Vietnam are now in South Vietnam. Neil Staebler will tell you that the South Vietnamese people today are turn- ing in active support to the government in Saigon, and that it would be disas- trous for the United States to unilat- erally withdraw because this would mean the end of a responsible government that is getting broader based all the time. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Michigan has expired. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 additional seconds, if I might. ' The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Michigan that we are operating under the 1-minute rule, and that cannot be done. WE SHOULD SUPPORT PRESIDENT NIXON'S POSITION ON THE WAR IN VIETNAM (Mr. PELLY asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 1 min- ute, and to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. GERALD R. FORD). Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Wash- ington yielding me this time. I under- stand the distinguished Speaker's prob- lem, insofar as extension of time under the 1-minute rule is concerned. Mr. Speaker, just let me say in con- clusion that the President of the United States is acting affirmatively to end the war in Vietnam.. Twelve percent of the troops assigned to Vietnam when he took office in January 1969 are either home or on their way home. Twenty percent of the combat military personnel who were there when the President took office are now out of Vietnam. The President is working hard for peace, and we will get peace, either at Paris or through the phasing out of our troops and phasing in of South Viet- namese troops. I believe the American people support this plan for peace, and anything that undermines it will be most unfortunate for our men who are in Vietnam, and those who are fighting for freedom around the world. PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON RULES TO FILE PRIVILEGED RE- PORTS Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules may have until midnight to- night to file certain privileged reports. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 5, COMMITTEE ON THE JU- DICIARY, TO SIT DURING GEN- ERAL DEBATE TOMORROW Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the Judiciary may sit during general debate tomorrow, Wednesday, October 15. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Okla- homa? Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I ask the distin- guished majority leader if the request has been cleared with the minority leader? Mr. ALBERT. It has been cleared with the distinguished ranking Republican Abbitt Adams Arends Ashbrook Ashley Aspinall Berry Blatnik Bow Brock Brooks Brown, Calif. Burton, Utah Cahill Camp Carey Casey Cederberg Geller Clark Cohelan Collier Collins Corman Daddario Dawson de Ia Garza Delaney Devine Diggs Dingell Eckhardt Edmondson H 9459. [Roll No. 2171 Edwards, Calif. Martin Fallon May Farbstein Meeds Fascell Nedzi Findley Nelsen Fish O'Konski Fisher Ottinger Flynt Patman Foley Pollock Ford, Powell William D. Quie Frey Reid, N.Y. Fulton, Tenn. Rivers Gray Rodino Green, Oreg. Rooney, Pa. Griffin Roybal Haley St Germain Hansen, Wash. St. Onge Hastings Saylor Hays Scheuer Holileld Hoslner Jacobs Jonas Jones, Ala. Jones, Tenn. Karth Kirwan Kuykendall Kyros Lloyd Lujan McMillan Sisk Smith, Calif. Steed Steiger, Wis. Sullivan Taylor Teague, Calif. Tunney Vander Jagt Watson Whalley Wold Wright member of the committee, the gentle- The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 333 man from Ohio (Mr. MCCULLOCH). Members have answered to their names, Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, a quorum. will the gentleman yield? By unanimous consent, further pro- Mr. POFF. I yield to the minority ceedings under the call were dispensed leader. with. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The matter has been cleared with me also. I strong- ly urge that the unanimous consent be granted. The subcommittee is working on the anticrime bill. We want it out, and this is one way to get it out. Mr. POFF. I thank the 'gentleman. I withdraw my reservation of objection. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Okla- homa? There was no objection. CORRECTION OF VOTE Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 213 on Octo- ber 9, I am recorded as absent. I was present and voted "yea." I ask unani- mous consent that the permanent RECORD and Journal be corrected accordingly. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. (Mr. ALBERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to advise Members that the distin- guished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. MILLS), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, has requested me to announce that sometime during this week he will seek to call up, under unanimous- consent agreement, the bill, H.R. 14020, to amend the Second Liberty Bond Act to increase the maximum interest rate permitted on U.S. savings bonds, a bill which has been unanimously reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their names: Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 576 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. RES. 576 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be In order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 13000) to implement the Federal employee pay com- parability system, to establish a Federal Em- ployee Salary Commission and a Board of Arbitration, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority mem- ber of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such consideration, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amend- ments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or com- mittee amendment in the nature of a sub- Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved Fo~~Ne seS?~ 8f/OA~3 E P7 A43 78000400070013-4 ~.. in the yard for repairs will be paid an allowance. ai? ute. '!'he previc question shall he con- sidered as ordered on he bill and amendments h reto co final pac tge without Intervening I-Ition except one otion to recommit with or without instruc' as. The SPEAKS) irissachusetts c.1 lied for I hop Mr. O_) NEILL arid was given 1 ?:Lend his remir. M r. OYNEILL esker, I yield [nay consume an, r ~:uarks yield to a`tiis (Mr. ANDEer Mr. Speaker. ovides an opt trencral debate Ii. R. 13000 to im1 ployee pay con) establish a Fe, commission anc and for other I further provides to consider the an original bill f- rnent. The gentleman from r. O NEILL) is rec- Massachusetts asked mission to revise and f Massachusetts. Mr. iyself such time as I t the conclusion of my e gentleman from Iill- 1) one-half hour. louse Resolution 578 rule with 2 hours of or consideration of ment the Federal em- 'arability system, to -al Employee Salary Board of Arbitration, poses. The. resolution tat It shall be in order mmittee substitute as the purpose of amend- re are two ,asic purposes of H.R. ,14r 13000:_ JUL&. the set i .g up of a permanent method of adju 1 ng the pay of Federal employees who paid under GS. PFS, Foreign Servic schedules and the schedules relati to doctors, dentists and nurses und, the Veterans Admini- stration; and SS,,gpd.the el :.ination of inequity re- quiring postal nployees to serve 21 years before reae ling maximum pay for their work. Un'i~ - this bill they would reach top pay in tr years. A Federal En loyee Salary Commis- sion would be up, composed of four -representatives t om the Executive and four from emp:, 'ee organizations. For purposes of vote, , the employee groups have only thre' rotes; however, in the event of arbiti , y behavior, aggrieved employees will I-: -e recourse through the Board of Arbitrr on. The Board of rbitration will be com- posed of four M, ibers of Congress-two from each body )ne representative each of the Executiv Lnd the employees, and an impartial c; irman selected by the other six. The I- ird will decide whether the decision or the Commission Is In agreement will 'olicy directives in the law. In order to cr ate more incentives In the postal servi: , the present system of in-stet) promote a before reaching the top step in grac + will be reduced from 21 years to 3 ye; 's. All lower grade em- ployees-PFS I o PFS 11-are given a 2-step advancer =nt effective October 1, 1969. The high- r levels-PPS 12 and above-will be iven earned step ad- vancement on iy 1, 1970, as their first step in the ace ?ratlon program. An allowanc of not more than $10 per day for con uting would be allowed employees of e:- :utive and independent establishments isigned to duty at re- mote worksites Corps of Eng in floating pla employees can: weather conditH Premium compensation will be per- pitted for certain employees for Sunday, r'-ht, holiday, and overtime pay. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 576 in order that H.R. 13000 may be considered- Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. Speaker, as Is sometimes the case, I believe that the title of this particular bill, H.R. 13000, Is somewhat deceptive in that it Is called "the Federal Salary Comparability Act of 1969." I am certain that in the debate we have on this bill today, this afternoon, that much will be said about the pledge that the Congress made in 1982 to afford full comparability to those who are employed by the Fed- eral Government, and particularly those in the Federal postal service. However, I think that when I voted for comparability in 1962. along with, I be- lieve, virtually the entire House of Rep- resentatives, I had no idea we would come to the point to which we have come in this legislation-to remove completely from the authority of the President to have an input on salary schedules for those in the Executive branch and to so circumscribe the authority of the Con- aress that we have literally nothing left to say about the manner in which Federal salaries and Federal compensation is fixed. Therefore, I would suggest that we ought to examine with some care the provisions of this legislation, relating as they do to a Federal Salary Commission and to a Federal Arbitration Board, be- cause I asked one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee on Rules, the distinguished gentleman from Ari- zona (Mr. UDALL) just exactly how the President could ever frame a meaningful budget, considering, as we must, that we have something like 2 million Federal em- ployees that would be brought under the purview of this legislation-I do not have the exact figure on the tip of my tongue, but the Federal payroll a few years ago was $18 billion. I am sure it is much more than that today-how is the President of the United States ever going to be able to submit meaningful budget estimates when we take out of his hands com- pletely. I repeat anything to do or to say about the setting of Federal compensa- tion. Of course, if you have read the report and if you have read the views that were submitted on this bill by the Deputy Di- rector of the Bureau of the Budget and by the Postmaster General, you will find that it is precisely for this reason that they are in opposition to this legislation- I do not, for one, oppose what my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. O'NEILL) said tluit for a long time we have neglected particularly those in the postal service. and I think my record is good in that regard. eers employees engaged Since I came to the Congress 9 years operations, when the ago, I have voted, I believe, -without ex- t board vessels due to ception for increases for postal workers. as or while a vessel is But I do object, and I do object very fun- darnentally to the mc_ Orrice Committee now set far as the fixing of Federa, comiaellsation is concer5p,", Let me make one ot,. ceived a wire, as did all M. ...,is House. a few days ago signed by president of some of the postal unio,, The first line in that wire read: H.R. 13000 is a significant first step toward postal reform. I think this bill is going to move us farther away from the objective of postal reform. I think once this legislation be- comes law, if it does become the law of the land: once we set up permanent ma- chinery for the annual review and fixing by this Federal Salary Commission of salaries for postal employees and other Federal employees, we are going to be moving, not toward, but away from the goal of postal reform. I noted also a document that came to my desk just over the weekend, a pub- lication put out by the United Federation of Postal Clerks, the Federation News Service, in which is reported the grant- ing of a rule on this particular bill H.R. 13000 and in which. referring to the 13-to-13 vote in the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee which, in effect, defeated the administration's postal reform measure, the following is said: Therefore, we must continue our efforts with PO&CS Committee Members and all Congressmen In support of the Dulski Postal Reform bill. H.R. 4, and remain "on guard" continually against H.R. 11750 and all corpo- ration amendments! Make no mistake about it. The people who are supporting this bill today are against postal reform. They are against the Postal Corporation and they are satisfied that once this bill becomes the law of the land and they have this com- mission fixing salaries, nobody is even going to talk any more about the kind of fundamental far-reaching basic re- form of the postal system that not only I think we need, but also the people of this country are speaking of today with a rather loud voice to their Rep- resentatives in Congress, saying they are dissatisfied with the way the affairs in this department are being run. They want basic, far-reaching postal reform. I feel this bill simply is not going to advance us one step in the direction of that reform. The purpose of the bill is to set up a permanent method of adjusting the pay of Federal employees and to provide pay increases for postal workers. The bill creates a Federal Employee Salary Commission of eight members, four appointed from the executive de- partments and four from Federal em- ployee groups. The Commission shall make studies and draw up salary sched- ules. For voting purposes, the employee group will have only three votes so that the Executive will control the Commis- sion. Also created by the bill is the Federal Employee Salary Board of Arbitration composed of two Senators and two Rep- resentatives, appointed bipartisanly, one member appointed by each of the Chair- man of the Civil Service Commission and Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 -oer 14, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE one employee groups, and one member bers, judges, and executive-level em- appointed by a majority of the Board, ployees in the departments downtown. who shall serve as chairman. They oppose this. If any member of-the Salary Commis- They note that none of the pay in- sion shall d?agree with the recommen- creases for 1970 are budgeted and could dations of the Commission, he can ap- easily reach $2,000,000,000 In calendar peal to the Board, whose decision shall 1970 if all Federal employees are given be binding and have the effect of law only a 5-percent increase. unless specifically overridden by the Con- They expect employee-members of the gress within 30 days of the submission Salary Commission who do not get all of such pay schedule recommendations. they want to immediately appeal to the This is the only place where the Con- Salary Board. Board decisions are bind- gress would become directly involved ing, on Congress and on the President, with the operation. The President is ac- They believe that the resoonsibility of the tually not involved at all in any direct Congress and the President must be manner. There is only one Executive- maintained. They want the bill defeated. appointed member on the Board. Since The administration does not support the Executive has voting control of the the bill. There are two principle reasons: Salary Commission and since any minor- unbudgeted funding, and the loss of Ex- ity member of the Commission may ap- ecutive authority in the area. peal to the Board, the Board will almost The bill is a committee substitute; always have the final say. Unless Con- the rule will have to reflect this. gress would take affirmative action to Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the stop such recommendations as the Board gentleman yield? may submit, they become effective. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to The bill also provides pay raises for the distinguished chairman of the com- postal employees. Current law requires mittee, the gentleman from New York 21 years for a postal employee to reach (Mr. DULSKI). the top step In his grade. The bill reduces Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this period to 8 years. I have always had the greatest respect All lower grade postal employees- and admiration for the gentleman in the grades 1 to 11-are given two-step ad- well, but when the gentleman says that vancement effective October 1, 1969. postal reform is dead, I wish to inform Higher level employees-grades 12 and the gentleman that today the Committee above-will be given earned step ad- on Post Office and Civil Service met in vancement on July 1, 1970. The estimated executive session and the first section of cost of the advancement for lower grade an amendment giving the Postmaster employees in fiscal 1970 is $244,000,000. General 9-year term of office to provide This is not in the budget. The 1971 addi- continuity in the top postal management. tional cost is estimated to be $544,000,000. Last but not least, the gentleman talks There are several minor provisions about what the bill will do, but is It not contained in the bill. A $10 per day pay- true what the gentleman in the well just ment is authorized to Federal employees said a few moments ago is the same thing working at remote locations to defray the corporation would do? The corpora- commuting expenses. The payment of tion would take over the entire function premium compensation is also authorized of the Congress on rates and wages. A for certain employees who must work postal corporation would take pay out of holidays, Sundays, and at night. These the hands of the Congress, just the same include border patrolmen, customs offs- as this bill does. vials, and agents of the FBI. These fea- Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Speak- tures are estimated to cost about $100,000 er, in response to the gentleman from per year. New York, I would'make this reply, and Separate views are Bled by the gen- this Is one thing I am sure his commit- tleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT). He tee did not do In the executive session supports the concept of a permanent that the gentleman refers to. The bill is Salary Commission but believes it should not going to leave it to free collective be advisory to the President and the bargaining between representatives of Congress and should not have its recom- the postal workers and other Federal mendations become effective until af- employees and those who represent man- firmative action by the Congress ap- agement on the Federal level. The gentle- proves them. Nor does he believe the man is not willing to leave it to the President should be bypassed because of process of free collective bargaining on the budgetary impact of salary increases, the setting of these wage rates. If the He opposes giving some Federal em- gentleman was willing to do that I would or n .R. ployees a raise when others do not re- be with him, because then I think we 11750, then I think you would have a ceive equal treatment. would bring the whole business of the good bill. I have very little reason to The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) Post Office Department down to the kind believe that kind of bill will come from and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. of working arrangement that is feasible the committee. DERWINSKI) have filed minority views and has been feasible for 180 years in the Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Speaker, will the strongly opposing passage: They believe private sector. I cannot see why it would gentleman yield? the bill destroys the President's author- not work in the public sector. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to ity and responsibility to participate in I cannot for the life of me under- the gentleman from New York. determining pay schedules. They like- stand these people who are wiring me Mr. BRASCO. I just want to point out wise believe the bill substantially re- and the people who are signing their that I believe the gentleman in the well moves the Congress from any effective names to the communication I read a is mistaken on two accounts here. voice in the same determination, Ieav- moment ago, who are exponents of the First, the gentleman indicated if we ing it about in the same position with right of free collective bargaining for were to pass this bill today we would respect to Federal employees as it now Federal employees, I cannot understand take away from the President and the is with respect to the salaries of Mem- why they resist with every ounce of their Congress any role in the fixing of sal- H 9461 strength apparently the idea that we ought to have free collective bargaining in this area. It seems to me that ought to be the very function and purpose of these unions, to represent people in the setting of wages and terms and condi- tions of employment. Yet this is one thing they do not want. What they want to set up is a Salary Commission. We are Inevitably going to have an appeal from the Commission, and the gentleman knows that as well as I, and then whom do we have on the Arbitration Board? We have a majority of the Board consisting of Members of Congress, two from the House, and two from the Senate, appointed by the Speaker and the President pro tempore of the Senate. These four people are going to be under the heaviest imagin- able pressure to yield to the demands that will then be made to arbitrate the differences about areas of wages and compensation in the postal service and the Federal employment. I would sug- gest this is scarcely the best way to ar- rive at an objective determination of those questions. Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I will not argue on the point about the Commis- sion. I feel just as well as the gentleman does, that we must have real postal re- form. In H.R. 4 we have the mechanism that will achieve real reform within the confines of the responsibilities of Con- gress. But let me tell the gentleman this much. I started hearings on April 22, -and I have been working on these ques- tions. When H.R. 4 comes out of the committee, with perfecting amendments added, it will provide truly meaningful postal reform. I assure the gentleman that postal reform will not be killed so long as I stay as chairman of the committee. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois, I am sure the gentleman is both sincere and hon- est in the convictions he has expressed. I do not for a moment impugn the sin- cerity of his position. If I could believe, I say to the gentle- man from New York, that the amend- ments he says inevitably will come and will be attached to this bill, H.R. 4, would Include collective bargaining so far as wages are concerned, and if they would include taking the ratemaking process out of the Congress and putting it under the kind of ratemaking board the Post- master General has asked f i H -Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 H 9462 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 1, arses. That is try , In terms of the salary- fixing Commis..' on. However, under the corporate setup the President and the Postmaster Gen ral have asked for the same kind of ccr yept. Mr. ANDER ( N of Illinois. If the gen- tleman will p(r nit me to continue, it would be done 1) the process of free col- lective bargain ig. That is my whole point. Mr. BRASC() That is not so. If the gentleman will take a look at the bill encompassing i e corporate form, there is set up a dispr-.es panel to complement the process of c, llective bargaining. The unfortunate pa . is that there is no true collective barga :iing, because If there Is an impasse, tb, disputes panel must say OK before an em can come before it. There Is no gu? -antee to labor that the disputes panel -ill okay discussing any item, when the resolved. So u there is no to That is why la t Mr. ANDER: agree with thf there is no cc,, that bill. I belie I shall not ib debate further have already it just a salary c, represents a v. and I think a t, sibility by thi President out process altoget We ought t,) very closely a,. we vote finally Mr. BROYI Speaker, I rise- The eliminrm inequity which The creation of a Federal Employee The SPEAKER. The question is on t,t. Salary Commission will eliminate in the motion offered by the gentleman from future any bias which may have existed Arizona. in the conduct of these surveys in the The motion was agreed to. past. The Commission can also prevent IN THE COMMrrTEE OF PRE WHOLE future recurrences of the position, which Accordingly the House resolved Itself has often been taken by the executive into the Committee of the Whole House branch, that the congressional policy of on the State of the Union for the con- comparability should be implemented sideration of the bill H.R. 13000, with only when a budget surplus permits. The Mr. PRICE of Illinois in the chair. Commission can guarantee once and for The Clerk read the title of the bill. all that Federal employees will not be the first to suffer from budget limitations and that adequate compensation will be provided In order to maintain the high level of competence we need in the Fed- eral Government. Further, we will es- tablish once and for all the regular ad- justments in salaries of Federal employ- ees are an automatic cost of Government rather than an act of generosity. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that this legis- lation in its present form does not pro- vide also for a comparability increase at the date of enactment for other Federal employees. By not including some ad- justment at this time, we will, in effect, make it necessary for other employees to wait for consideration of such an In- crease until the Federal Employee Salary Commission the legislation creates can become operable and afford them relief. It is my understanding that an amend- ment will be offered today which will in- clude other Federal employees, and I shall certainly support that amendment when it is offered. Mr. Speaker, I also support the pro- visions of this measure which provide for payment to defray commuting expenses of employees assigned to duty at remote worksites: for payment to employees en- gaged in floating plant operations who are prevented from boarding their ves- sels under circumstances beyond their control; and for payment of premium compensation to certain groups of em- ployees who are not now compensated for work on Sundays, nights, holidays, and overtime. Mr. Speaker, most of the provisions of this legislation are desperately needed, and I am therefore supporting it. As I said earlier. I sincerely feel we should in- clude other Federal employees In Its sal- ary adjustment provisions, and I shall support an amendment to do so. How- ever, regardless of whether or not the amendment is adopted, I shall support the bill on final passage. Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any further requests for time? Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I have no further requests for time. Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Sr"ker, I move that the House resolve itself Into the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 13000+ to implement the Fed- eral employee pay comparability system, to establish a Federal Employee Salary Commission and a Board of Arbitration, and for other purposes. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CoReerr) will be recognized for 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL). Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee, the gen- tleman from New York (Mr. DULsxl). Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, enactment of H.R. 13000 will represent the final step in carrying out one of the chief long-range legislative programs of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. It achieves an objective that the com- mittee has shared with the vast majority of our colleagues-the establishment of a permanent system for adjusting the pay of all Federal employees under the prin- ciple of comparability adopted by the Congress in 1962. That is the chief-in fact the over- ruling-purpose of the bill. A second most important advance in pay-setting also is accomplished by H.R. 13000. The bill eliminates a serious inequity which now makes most of our postal em- ployees serve an "apprenticeship" of 21 years before he is paid the "journeyman" top pay rate. The bill reduces the 21-year appren- ticeship to 8 years. Mr. Chairman, our Subcommittee on Compensation, under the able leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL), is to be commended for its fine work on this legislation. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my- self 10 minutes. (Mr. UDALL asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, this is really an historic pay bill in every sense of that perhaps overworked term. To put it Into focus, let me begin by summariz- ing for the committee some of the fea- tures of the Government salary systems that the Federal Government has. I think there has been some confusion on this point. The taxpayers of this country will pay out this year in salaries about $41 bil- lion. This is almost equally divided be- tween civilian salaries and military sal- aries. I will insert the precise figures in the extension of my remarks in the table that I have here, but the military sal- aries are $21 billion and the civilian sal- aries are about $20 billion. I insert the following in the RECORD at this time: der the corporate bill e collective bargaining. ar could not support it. )N of Illinois. I cannot gentleman's statement active bargaining under there Is. ce time to continue this except to suggest, as I iieated, that this Is not reparability bill. This bill y fundamental change, ;al abdication of respon- Congress. It takes the of the decisionmaking ar. look very carefully and our action today before on this measure. ILL of Virginia. Mr. n support of H.R. 13000. on of the longstanding has required postal em- ployees to see. 21 years before reach- ing maximum ay for their work is long overdue. The b* t distribution clerks and letter carriers. - ie backbone of our postal service, can et rect under existing law, is $1,864 less t an the minimum stand- ard of a so-en ed moderate standard of living after 21 years, and at mid-range. PFS 5, step they receive only $111 more than th? standard set by the Bu- reau of Labor r tatistics for a low stand- ard of living. This is pate ttly unfair to thousands upon thousan ; of loyal devoted career employees, Mr Speaker, and I urge our colleagues to orrect it here today by adoption of tL legislation. I also sup )rt enthusiastically the creation of a - ederai Employee Salary Commission, nd of an Arbitration Board to re:ve any conflicts which might develo, within the Commission. I feel it is psi ticularly important that representation on the arbitration board by afforded lvl mbers of the House and Senate. The semis ; omatic adjustments we effected in 196; and 1969 were based on a survey done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics unch - the control of the Civil Service Comer ssion and the Bureau of the Budget. d I understand my col- leagues on try , committee are gravely concerned ai), ut whether or not true comparability was actually achieved under these at iustments. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For October 14, 1969 Dollar amounts. paid Number of Annual Hourly (billions) employees pay pay General schedule_ __ 11.03 1, 300, 000 $8, 648 $4.16 Postal field service._ 4.42 735, 000 6,932 3.44 Wage board-------- 4.05 740,000 6,802 3.27 Military____________ 21.103 3,458,000 ________________ Other_____________ .948 120,000 7,407 3.56 Total civilian__________'_ 2.75 $20.448 Total military____________ - 3.458 21.103 The civilian salaries are really divided into perhaps four main categories. It is important to keep them separate, be- cause some of the features of this bill deal with one or another of the various salary systems. The general -schedule is the largest of the civilian salary system. It is the so-called classified service. There are 1.3 million or 11/3 million Fed- eral employees in this classified service. The payroll for this year for these peo- ple will be roughly $11 billion. Next we come to the postal field service. This service has 735,000 employees. The pay- roll for them this year will be about $4.4 billion. Next we have a number of mis- cellaneous systems that are covered in this bill. We have the Veterans' Admin- istration and the doctors, dentists, and officials who work for the Veterans' Ad- ministration. We have the Foreign Serv- ice, with the two Foreign Service salary systems. These miscellaneous systems amount to a little under $1 billion and employ something on,the order of 120,000 Americans. On top of this we have the military where we have about 3.5 million men in uniform in the military. Their pay, as I indicated, this year will be about $21 billion. You simply cannot do the things this Government has undertaken to do and you cannot have the Military Establish- ment and you cannot have the Post Office Department that we have and a $900 billion economy without a lot of em- ployees, and you cannot have employees without salaries. A continuing problem for the Congress has been how do you fix salaries; What are adequate salaries? These are the problems my subcommittee and our great full committee have wrestled with. In fact, because of an act passed in the last Congress, we now fix the policy, as it were, for the whole Federal Govern- ment, because there is a statute which says that once you adjust Federal civil- ian salaries in any specific amounts, then the military service automatically gets the same increases in proportion in the different grades of the military service. So the decisions we make today in this bill and the decisions which we have made previously are vital decisions that involve billions of dollars, that involve fundamental government both with re- gard to the treatment of its employees and the service which they perform for their Government. IRE Sa ggp Nl/? 1- off 72 8W000400070013-4 H 9463 I Mr. Chairman, I think it is well that this House consider these decisions and consider them very carefully. What does this bill do? This is not just another pay bill. You have all been here, the oldtimers, and voted against the var- ions pay bills. However, this is a very different bill. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ANDERSON) has put his finger upon some of the key aspects of the bill. This may be the last pay bill you ever vote for if you stay here for another 20 years. This is not a change; it is a fundamental change. It is not a change that has been ill considered and a change that was not made without deep and careful thought. Mr. Chairman, the change advocated in this bill represents an achievement for me over the period of about a 5-year program because I have been. personally working to bring about some kind of ra- tional, sensible, permanent way of ap- proaching the problem of the adjustment of Federal salaries. I say this because this problem is going to be with us every year. This is a plan of machinery, a method of adjusting the Federal, civil- ian, postal, classified, and military sal- aries. If you support this bill today, and I urge you do so, and if it passes, you will have, I think, made a historic achievement and brought to this whole problem a rationality and a permanence that it never had before. Mr. Chairman, what does the bill do? The bill really does two major things. First, it deals with the postal people only; and, second, you are dealing gen- erally with the Federal employees across the board. There are inequities and I shall first deal with the postal provisions because there was some controversial thought but was supported widely in our committee when finally understood and that is the plight of the letter carriers, the plight of the clerks, and there are over, I think, nearly one-half million of these people. These are men engaged'in dead end employment. The -statistics show that over 90 percent of them begin and end their careers-their 20 to 30 years of service careers-in the same grade. They begin at level 4 or 5 and end their careers at that level. It is a dead end employment. Less than 1 per- cent of them in any one year expect a promotion in their grade level. Mr. Chairman, the postal field service is constructed so that there are 12 steps and in order to become a full-fledged letter carrier one must serve a minimum of 21 years, until they are appointed to the top level. In other words, they serve an apprenticeship, really, for 21 years before qualifying for the top salary step. Take for example, if I am a carpenter, at the end of 2 or 3 or 5 years I then become a full-fledged carpenter. If I am a policeman employed under most. city or State governments, I am a full-fledged policeman at some point in 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years. But if you are in the postal field service, you are still classified as a rookie. Mr. Chairman, this bill shortens the time of such service from 21 years to 8 years during which it takes a new man coming into the postal field service to reach the top step. This is crucial, be- cause we must begin to recruit the good people we need. The turnover has been something frightening for the whole postal service because next year one man out of every four working for the postal service will be gone from some type of postal activity. The substitute clerks, for example, the turnover is 45 percent. How would you like to run an efficient busi- ness with a turnover of 45 percent in a category of employees who sort the mail, who know the streets and addresses and all the rest that goes with the proper and efficient handling of the mail? Mr. Chairman, the first thing this bill does is to change the structure and to correct a longstanding injustice and to shorten the period of that service from 21 years to 8 years. The second major feature of this bill- Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield before he goes to the other feature? Mr. UDALL. Yes, I yield to the gentle- man from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Is it not true that only a couple of years ago or, maybe, 3 years ago an effort was made to reclassify the postal workers and the majority on the committee voted it down? Mr. UDALL. We reclassified the grade 4's in 1967; we made them grade 5's so we did reclassify in that sense, it was not a full grade 5, as the gentleman knows. Mr. GROSS. That may well be, but the attempt was made at that time to re- classify and, as far as I am concerned, it should have been passed. I supported it, but for some strange reason it was voted down. I am not going into the particulars of what happened on that. occasion, the gentleman is well aware of them, and so were others on this committee. Mr. UDALL. The gentleman from Iowa always attempts to keep me on the straight and narrow path, so I certainly appreciate his contribution because he always corrects me if I make an error, and if in the future I make an error he will correct me or call me to account. The second major change this bill makes is the most vital one, and is the most controversial, and the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Committee on Rules, spoke about it just a few mo- ments ago. What this bill does is to take Congress out of the nonsensical position of fight- ing year in and year out a Federal pay bill. Each year since 1962, with the ex- ception of the last 2, we have had pay rallies in Washington, the corridors have been filled with postal employees coming to Washington to petition for redress of their grievances. We have argued and battled whether or not the budget would stand for it, - and we have fought the White House, and the employee unions, and we have been caught in the middle of this thing year in and year out. So now for the first time we are going to put this on a rational basis, and estab- lish a salary commission. This commis- sion is not given a blank check. Congress does not abdicate its responsibility. The President is not taken out of the picture as it has been alleged. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R0004000700 3-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 14, 1969 This Comm ;ion will carry out the policies that C< gress makes. Let me give ' )u an example. Suppose you are the esident of a very busy bank- The CHAIR', .N. The time of the gen- tleman has ex is -ed. Mr UDAU. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 5 add )nal minutes. As f started say, suppose you are the president of a ery important and busy bank. and you id that you are spending about two-thins of your time attempt- ing to haggle with every bookkeeper. teller. and cle: in the bank on whether their pay shoe I be increased, and as a result you finu ou cannot attend to the really imports.: , problems of the bank. As a result. hink what you might do would be to c:: In a trusted lieutenant. and you wouln ;ay to him that it is the policy of this e, 6nk to pay the tellers in this bank wh;t the tellers are paid in other banks ip .his city, and to pay the janitors in thi, bank what the janitors in other bank,- tre paid, and to pay the bookkeepers %%1 at other bookkeepers in other banks a' paid. Do not bother me with all these roblems. You take some time and atteci pt to find out what the salary schedule are for bookkeepers In other banks. or ompanies. or industries. that are comps able to the banking in- dustry, and b ig those in to me and I will put them L effect: lay them on my desk for my , nsideration, and then I will check then and if I like them I will put them In effc-:t. That is who' Te do here. Congress fixes our policy, an, ve say that a bookkeeper in the Veter:c s' Administration or a bookkeeper in -ASA or a bookkeeper in the Defense a artment ought to get the same pay tha, bookkeeper receives in private indusi r r who has that kind of responsibility. We do not '.. ke the time of the Con- gress to do tin we put it in the hands of experts wh, go out and study It and find out what is, and who then come in and lay it bet e us, and we can take it or leave it. This is the elegation that some will object to. Thi is the abdication of oon- gressional re:,i rnsibility that some will object to. I emphasis, that under this bill the House and the, 3enate will still have the veto authorit:. We will set the policy, as I have indicat" . Let me asr you a question or two about this: Dn. 1ng 1968 and 1969 did any of you feel iii.' you had abdicated your responsibilitic Did any of you feel lone- ly because we id not have pay rallies? 1968 was the I rst year on record when we have not bo ?n confronted with a pay bill. The last is in 1967 when we wrote a bill as kind a test where we said, let us test a nev dea. we can work out a formula, and re said to the President when July 1961t comes, you take a look at private enteri>i se and with the BIB sta- tistics, and the other information that is availal le, and let us put them together and a me up with the results. This the n- ident did. and it was the fairest and b , most rational and least cumbersome v raise we have ever had. The President did the same thing this year. Did any of you feel guilty? Did any of you feel lonely? Did any of you feel like we had abdicated our responsi- bilities? Or did you feel like I felt, that we. in the Congress had set the policy in 1967. and set up the mechanics and the details of carrying it out? Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. ABERNETHY. Would this Com- mission be comparable to the Commis- sion now that regulates or really fixes sal- aries of Members of Congress, the ju- diciary, and so forth? Mr. UDALL. It would be quite com- parable in its purpose. In fact, they would work together. This is part of the whole idea to have a rational construc- tion of the federal systems. Mr. ABERNETHY. Would it be the same Commission? Mr. UDALL. It would be an entirely different commission. Mr. ABERNETHY. How would this Commission be designated? Mr. UDALL. The Commission would be designated as follows: There would be really seven votes on the Commission- four would be controlled by the Presi- dent-and I say that to those who are saying that you are taking the President out of the picture. The four are ap- pointed as follows: the Bureau of the Budget, the Postmaster General, the head of the Department of Defense, and the Civil Service Commission. These are four votes. The other three votes are to the two largest postal union employees, so it Is a half vote each. Then you have one for the classified union and then the inde- pendent Federal union representative is to be picked by the Civil Service Com- mission-and there you have seven votes. Mr. ABERNETHY. Then the Commis- sion will be quite different from the pres- ent congressional Commission but it will still be a salary determining commission. Mr. UDALL. Oh. indeed. Now that brings us to the second step. The employee unions were very afraid they were giving up what they thought to be the ultimate protection that they had. Mr. ABERNETHY. Did the gentleman say there would be three union members on the Commission? Mr. UDALL. Three out of seven. They were most apprehensive that they were giving up their access to the Congress and felt that In the final analy- sis the Congress had to pull them out, when the present Postmaster General would not come up with a raise. We said, All right, If the Salary Commission does not carry it out-and that is the only question before the Salary Commission, to make proper petitions giving them comparability-then the employee un- ions can appeal to the Board of Arbi- tration and the Board of Arbitration has seven votes. Four of those votes are Members of Congress, two Members of the House and two Members of the Sen- ate. There is one Government representa- tive selected by the Civil Service Com- mission-and one union representative and a chairman from the American Ar- bitration Society. So these people, seven members of the Arbitration Board finally determine whether the Salary Commission is ap- plying the policy that the Congress lays down. Mr. ABERNETI'HY. If they do not like it, they would still be coming back? If they do not like the recommendations of the Commission, of course, you antici- pate that they will still be back walk- ing the halls, do you not? Mr. UDALL. In any event, the find- ings of the Commission or the Board of Arbitration come back to the Congress for veto or for other action. In my opin- ion, based on 1968 and 1969 experience, I do not think so very much because this Is exactly what we did in the last 2 years. They will not be back at all. They will accept this. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. GROSS. Did I understand the gentleman to say that congressional, executive, and judicial pay raises are dovetailed with this bill? Mr. UDALL. Yes in a sense, that has been my aim, to get Congress out of this hassle. As I pointed out, the Congress has al- ready raised its salary eight times in 108 years and Congress never got around to this. So my judgment is that this is now rational, orderly, and regular review every 4 years, and the Congress ap- proved this. If you get a rational and orderly and annual adjustment of these other sys- tems tied into it, then you have a whole pay system of the Federal Government dovetailed together. Then they will be working together on a rational and or- derly basis. This has been my goal as my colleague knows, and I am sorry the gen- tleman does not share it. Mr. GROSS. Then you favor this dovetailing of legislation? Mr. UDALL. Indeed, it dovetails very nicely together and I hope the gentle- man will help to put in order these joints so we can finally put this into place. Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. RUPPE. The gentleman will re- can that 3 years ago the subcommittee did a great deal of work preparing a sal- ary schedule level in line with the rate increase proposed by this and other sub- committees at the time. I recognize the need to bring the two in order. I understand that this present legislation will cost about $500,000,000 in the next year. In the fiscal year now end- ing Is there any revenue measure that will be brought along to achieve the same revenues we are quite anxious to reach? Does the gentleman think we are going to secure the necessary revenue in 2 years to cover the cost of this legisla- tion? Mr. UDALL. The President sent some days ago, my friend will recall, urging a rate increase on first-class mail which has been before our committee, and this bill by the President would produce Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 1 ~, 196#pproved Fo~MWSJ48%QA1L3h, E P7-a53R000400070013-4 around $600,000,000 in additional rev- enue. The distinguished gentleman from Montana chairs that.subcommtttee and has been holding hearings on that bill. I am prepared to face up to my respon- sibility on the question of postal reform and other things but I regret that we have not been able to be together on this bill. It was a rather unprecedented thing. The gentleman was a very valuable member of that subcommittee and the committee. It was kind of unprecedented to combine a pay bill and a rate bill. Mr. RUPPE. They were acted on very much in parallel at that time. Mr. UDALL. There was very little en- thusiasm for a marriage between these two bills at that time. Mr. Chairman, I make this final point to those who are troubled, as some may be, about the delegation of authority, the abdication of congressional respon- sibility, and so on. If you feel badly about it, you might reflect that this is-in fact, the gentleman from Iowa stated in the Rules Committee, or someone up there, that it is unconstitutional. I said: There are $5 billion or $4 billion that is going to be paid out this year in the same unconstitutional fashion. There are 740,000 Federal employees who are paid under a sys- tem called "Wage Board." In that Wage Board system the Presi- dent plays no role. The Congress plays no role. I hear no complaints on those when adjustments have been made, and we have not had a chance to vote on them. The President did not know about them. This Wage Board has been in ex- istence since the time of Ulysses S. Grant. For more than 100 years we have had the Wage Board. It has worked. It has been delegated with authority by Con- gress to determine how much carpenters are paid in the building industry, in order to pay Federal carpenters in the same way. That is what we are doing in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in sup- port of H.R. 13000, the Federal Salary Comparability Act of 1969. For over 5 years I have been working toward this day. It has been my long- held belief that the employees of our Government deserved and needed a de- pendable, rational method of pay ad- justments in order to plan their careers in the Federal Service. For too many years we have tried to hire and retain competent employees by saying to them, "give us the best years of your life in return for an unknown system of pay adjustments." In accordance with the best-accepted private enterprise policies, we are today going to pass an act that says to the Federal employee, "From now on you can be assured that each year your pay will be adjusted in line with any changes in private enterprise." No longer will the almost 2 million employees covered by this bill have to sit back and hope or pray, that their salaries will be adjusted. We in Congress began this process in 1967 by passing that historic pay bill which allowed the Executive, in partner- ship with the Congress, to automatically set pay in 1968 an4 1969. During that de- bate, there were objections which raised a variety of ominous problems. During 1968 and 1969, those straw men were-laid to rest. Now the members have seen how smoothly and efficiently that law worked. The employees of all branches of Gov- ernment are satisfied with the principle established in that act. Now we come before you with the nat- ural extension of that act. Naturally, there are some changes-experience has shown us that certain structural modifi- cations were necessary-but the princi- ple remains the same. Congress must set the policy and establish the machinery for its smooth enactment. The Executive must administer that policy-not make it-and the Congress must continue the review and control of the policy. In addition to this policy of congres- sional control, we will reinterate today the fundamental personnel policy of comparability. This policy simply says that Government workers doing the same work as their counterparts in pri- vate enterprise must be paid substan- tially the same amount of money. This policy was established in 1962, restated in 1967, and repeated again today in this act. A computer programer in the De- partment of Defense should get the same amount of money as a computer pro- gramer working for IBM, if they do the same kind of work. These two fundamental policies-con- gressional review and comparability of pay-form the bedrock of the act we vote on today. The act itself is fairly simple-it has two major parts-one affects all Federal workers, and the second adjusts the pro- motion policy concerning postal workers. The major provision of this act con- cerning all Federal employees sets up a Federal Employees Salary Commission. This Commission is established to annu- ally recommend to the Congress adjust- ments in the pay of employees under the general schedule, the postal field serv- ice, the Veterans' Administration, and the Foreign Service. This Commission is composed of a regular representative of the President from each of the follow- ing: Civil Service Commission, Bureau of the Budget, Defense Department, and Post Office Department. In addition, the employees are represented by four mem- bers as follows: one representative for general schedule employees, two repre- sentatives for postal employees, and one representative from independent unions on a rotating basis. Each of the Presidential members will have one vote-a total of four-and the employee representatives will have three votes-(postal representatives will have one-half vote each. Thus, the Presiden- tial members will have a majority of the Commission. This is a deliberate policy so that the President can make sure his personnel policy is carried out. At the same time, the employees will have rep- resentation so that the employees will have some voice in this policy of setting pay. In addition to these eight regular members, there are three associate mem- bers. These associate members are se- lected by the Chairman of the Civil Serv- ice Commission and do not have a vote. They will be selected to present the views of the specialized employee groups, such as the Air Traffic Controllers or the Fed- eral Professionals and will be rotated an- nually by the Civil Service dommission. In the event that any regular member of the Commission feels that the con- gressional policy of comparability has not been carried out, this act provides for an appeals procedure. The appeal is made to an Arbitration Board composed of four Members of Congress-two from the House and two from the Senate-one Presidential rep- resentative, one employee representative, and an impartial Chairman selected by the first six. This arbitration board will review the decisions of the Salary Com- mission and decide if the congressional policy has been carried out. If it has not, the board will make the necessary changes, and send the revised changes on to Congress for final approval. If it finds that the recommendations of the Commission are in accord with the prin- ciple of comparability, it will so certify to Congress-again for final approval. This entire procedure is designed so that it should not take more than 60 to 90 days each year to adjust Federal sal- aries. This Js in vivid contrast to the months and months it previously took under the old system. This, then, is the historic and prece- dent-setting comparability system we vote on today. I believe it will become a landmark act in progressive personnel policymaking for Federal employees. POSTAL PROMOTION POLICY A second major provision of this act rectifies a longstanding and major prob- lem facing postal employees, particularly clerks and letter carriers. The Post Office Department has long complained of the difficulty in hiring, training, and retaining competent em- ployees. All of the Members of the House have heard from their constituents on the deteriorating service in the post of- fice. A primary cause of these problems lies in the fact that it takes over 21 years before a postal employee reaches the top step in his grade. This is similar to being a rookie after 20 years. All available evidence indicates that the postal employee is stymied on two fronts in trying to get ahead in the Post Office Department: First. There are not enough promotions to go around. For instance, only one em- ployee in every 100 gets promoted to a different position each year in the post office. The average for all other Govern- ment agencies is one in four. Second. The vast majority of postal employees thus remain in the same grade level throughout their career. It is in this grade level-usually grade 5-that the 20-plus years are spent. This problem is resolved in the fol- lowing manner: We reduce the 20 year problem to a maximum of 8 years. Thus, the new employee will know that he will make top grade in his pay by the eighth year rather than by the 20th. Second, we begin this process by ad- vancing the lower grade postal employees by two steps, effective October 1, 1969. This will provide an additional $412 per year. Add this to the average $298 per Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 year already a existai enipioyi for tiie month, and Decembe' 124.80 per mol the average ti :% ho has been urrently recd ]roil U 1. This probie that both mie: ployees of the have been mer for some time. tion should as,, taming and r ity employees In addition problem facii H.R. 13000 ha These sectit problems facin ployees serving= Government.') the payment o: Geed $10. to di trig to remote employee muse site, perhaps t_, and presently is his normal war defray part of This bill is ide? passed the 90t Another pro-. lowance for c'_ on floating pls_: of the Corps of identical to H committee in The final sr., affects various FBI. the Bordt lows for them, scheauled ove. duty that is pr, inequity is rer. is supported h-, All of these sions are estr $100.000 per ail Mn Chairm. ety of objectiol: Many of thern ous pay legislr ! colleagues to outline and re-: First. This dent and take tutional autho- This is pate the same opix r for precisely were giving power and tak We now prov: review in thii nents now sa' his longstan(i! what is the Pr, to my reading Presidential rt ary Commiss votes. As is v does have som Approved For DplpaS FS M 2~ 3i ~C~J~ 72-g R0004000700~1374ber 14, 1969 Ued, and you have the Furthermore. Congress has delegated getting a total of $59 authority to set wages totaling $4.05 bil- of October. November. lion under the coordinated Wage Board of this year. up from system. The President does not have a i. 't'his is in contrast to personal representative sitting on those eral Schedule employee boards-he does have agency representa- ~ince last July-and is tives. however. This act continues and ig an additional $69 per expands on that same principle. has been a grievance tgement and the em- 'ost office Department oning to our committee 'e believe that our solu- t the Department In re- -uiting additional qual- the foreseeable future. resolving this particular the postal employees, three other sections. s also resolve specific :,)articular .-grout-e of em- n other branches of the first of these authorizes 3,n allowance, not to ex- ay the cost of commut- x-ksites. Many times an ravel to a remote work- )ulld or repair a facility. Ist pay his own way from place. This bill will help ,his additional expense. ical to H.R. 12881, which Congress unanimously. don provides a living al- ain employes who work s operated by employees .ngineers. 'this section is 7406, which passed our 90th Congress. dal problem is one that ).gents employed by the Patrol, and others. It al- .o be paid for regularly me. Sunday and holiday sently not received. This 'ved by this section and the administration. ree miscellaneous provi- ated to cost less than rum. . there have been a vari- raised to this legislation. re a rehashing of previ- on. In order to alert my ese "straw men." I will it some of them. t will bypass the Presi- vay from him his consti- y. tly inaccurate. In 1967. ?nts objected to that bill ie opposite reason-we e President too much g it away from Congress. for more congressional et and the same oppo- "Let the President keep ig authority." Exactly ddent losing? According if this act. he has four resentatives on the Sal- i, with the controlling .1 known, the President hing to do with appoint- Second. This act places Congress in a meaningless and subordinate position. Again, this is the same argument that has been used over and over again by the same opponents. This act strengthens and expands the congressional role in setting pay policy as compared to the 1967 act. This is the primary reason why the President opposes this act. The Chief Executive's idea of a good law is to give the President complete authority to set employee pay. I would be interested to know the viewpoints of the opponents of this bill to that proposal. Let me quote the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget on this matter of congressional versus Presidential control: Although the Congress would be given the opportunity for review or the commisalon'a pay determinations and those of the board tiiruugh procedures similar to those con- t,dned In the reorganization statute ... the President would . . . have no authority or responsibility to deal with this vital execu- tive function. We believe this would be highly objectionable and unwise. My position is clear: I believe the Pres- ident has ample representation on the Salary Commission and Board-much more than he has under the coordinated Wage Board system. Furthermore. Con- gress has additional mechanisms for re- view through the Appeals Board and the ,,trial vote. This is a balance that should be maintained and continued. Third. This act is discriminatory against certain employees under the gen- eral schedule. This allegation deals with the section revising the step-advancement policies within the postal service. This change in policy is to attack a particular problem unique to postal employees. It is a fact that the vast majority of postal employees remain in the same grade throughout their careers. The same cannot be said of classified employees. Further, only one in 100 postal employees leers promoted out of his grade annually. The comparable figure for classified is vile in four. Thus, the facts are complete- ly different for these two groups of em- ployees when it comes to in-step ad- vancement. In-step advancementis sim- ply not relevant for advancement in the classified service-the same cannot be said for portal employees. Therefore, a different policy is called for and this bill makes that policy. We provide for a particular solution for a particular problem. This is exactly the same situation in sections 6, 7, and 8 of this bill where we provide particular solu- tions to particular problems for other employees concerning remote worksites, overtime pay, and hardship allowances. These provisions do not affect postal em- ployees but no one claims discrimination in these cases. As a direct result of this change in in- step advancement policy, postal em- ployees Rill receive an additional $412 per annum effective October 1, 1969. In July of this year, postal employees received an average of $298 pet year raise. Classified employees received an average of $825 per year raise. Even when we add the $412 from the month of October onward, no one can believe that the classified em- ployees under the general schedule will be shortchanged. No representatives of the classified em- ployees have ever said that the instep advancement policies have been a seri- ous detriment to hiring and retaining personnel. The reverse is the truth-all available evidence indicates that the movement within the civil service is very good and the advancement opportunities ample. If a different position is taken and the ease made for that position, I am sure the Post Office and Civil Service Com- mittee will give sympathetic considera- tion to a proposal to alleviate such a sit- uation. To this date, no such action has occured. It was for this reason that the allegations of unfairness toward gen=eral schedule employees was such a sur- prise to the members of the committee. It was assumed that we were alleviating a longstanding grievance that everyone agreed should be eliminated. It must be clear to all Members that we cannot have a shotgun approach to solving personnel problems. We must solve specific problems with specific so- lutions. We cannot apply blanket solu- tions that do not apply to everyone. This is precisely what would occur if the in- step advancement policies were changed for the entire civil service. We would be solving a problem that does not exist. Fourth. We have also discriminated against middle- and top-level super- visors. This is untrue. In committee we re- solved the major problems in conjunction with representatives of the supervisor employees. I refer my colleagues to page 42, lines 1 to 20 of this bill. This section rectified any temporary inequities that might occur. Furthermore, if any such problems do develop, I have been told that they will not number more than a few hundred from the more than 735,000 postal employees. This is a minor prob- lem indeed. Fifth. It is alleged that Irreguar com- mittee procedures were followed in bring- ing this bill to the floor. The identical complaint was lodged against this committee during debate in 1967. We find it repeated again. Let me just outline the procedures during which all kinds of testimony was heard, both pro and con, and during which time the opponents of this bill had an opportun- ity to be heard-and were in many cases. On September 16, 17, 18, and 20, 1968, the Compensation Subcommittee heard testimony-which was completely directed toward potential legislation during the 91st Congress. Then, on June 16. 17, and 26, 1969, ad- ditional testimony was heard. This was continued on July 15, 16, 18, and 19, 1969. After 11 days of open, public hear- ings on this subject, the subcommittee reported the bill on July 22 to the full committee. This bill was before the mem- bers until August 7, at which time, by ing his Cabin(r the Director of the Bu- reau of the Bu, ` ret. and the Chairman of the Civil Seri e Commission. In addi- tion, he will br -epresented on the Arbi- tration Board Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 1 J, 1969 pproved FoeM&aifA96( Al j3~i~1 P7 -BQ3 R000400070013-4 U1V .a vote of 22 to 2, it was reported for floor action. I do not believe that this action is indicative of haste or unfair activity. 't is a typical record} for any responsi- ble committee of this House and I am a ire my colleagues are aware of the work done by our committee over the years. We produce good legislation, notwith- standing the views of opponents of this bill. Sixth. It is alleged that this bill is un- duly inflationary and. should not be passed for that reason. This question has been raised every time Congress prepares to raise the sal- ary of the Federal employee. The Federal employee is always the first to feel the effect of the inflationary spiral and the last to get relief. We too often forget that these are human beings-with wives, children and the same costs of living as the rest of us. Further, the Federal em- ployee does not cause inflation. The causes, whether governmental or private in nature, are due to the war in Vietnam, the current lack of wage-price guidelines and an infinite number of related actions. All this bill does is say, "If inflation oc- curs in the private economy, and its effects are measured in the wages paid in the private sector, then the Govern- ment employee should have wages af- fected in the same manner and to the same degree." This bill says we should help the em- ployee offset the ravages of inflation-it is the least we can do as the employer. One additional point should be made clear on this issue: The administration witnesses indicated that they would be willing to have two additional salary increases during the next 2 years. Their suggestion was July of 1970 and then January of 1971 and each January there- after. We are proposing the same thing in this bill, with one exception: The first increase would be in January 1970, rather than July, a change of 6 months. So there is no substantial departure from the administration's position on this matter. I would hope that my colleagues would review this bill carefully-in doing so, they will see the great care and work that went into this bill and will ulti- mately support it. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec- ognizes the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. CORBETT). (Mr. CORBETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, the bill which we are now considering is one that is of major importance and critical concern to all postal and other Federal employees. It is a real milestone in the long and often rough road we have had to travel here since 1945 in attempting to see that our Federal employees are paid decent salaries. As one who has actively participated in every legislative pay raise effort for the past 25 years, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this particular bill and I urge its prompt passage. In brief, H.R. 13000 would accomplish two very important objectives which those of us who are charged with respon- sibility for Federal pay matters have long been trying to achieve. First, the bill would set up a perman- ent system for adjusting the pay of all Federal employees, except those now cov- ered by the so-called wage board system, in accordance with the principle of pay comparability which this Congress adopt- ed in 1962. Second, the measure would eliminate a very serious inequity in existing law which, in effect, requires a postal em- ployee to serve an apprenticeship of 21 years before he can be paid the top pay for his work. The waiting period for re- ceiving top pay is reduced in this bill to 8 years. In addition, H.R. 13000 will give most postal employees a two-step pay increase effective this month to make up for their failure to receive an adequate adjust- ment last July when other Federal em- ployees received far more, on the average, than the 4 percent which was given to postal workers. Mr. Chairman, the problem of devising some type of permanent system for set- ting the pay scales for our large Federal workforce in a responsible, rational, and orderly manner is one that has con- cerned me and the members of our com- mittee for many years. For all practical purposes, all pay raises since the end of World War II until 1967 were awarded as separate acts of Con- gress on a "shotgun" type approach and most often only after long, bitter fights. The first significant milestone was reached in 1962 when Congress adopted the very sound principle that the pay rates for Federal employees should be comparable to the pay rates of employees in private industry for the same types and levels of work. However, it was really not until 5 years later-in our act of 1967-that we made a significant start in implementing this principle. The Federal Salary Act of that year provided for a three-phase pay raise what was intended to bring Federal employees automatically closer to full comparability by July 1 of this year. Nevertheless, be- cause of the timelag in gathering and assessing the pay statistics, Federal em- ployees are still more than a year behind in achieving full current comparability. The 1967 act set an extremely good precedent. It also proved that an orderly system for adjusting Federal salaries automatically and without excessive con- gressional involvement was not only workable but a much more preferred system. In essence then, the establishment in H.R. 13000 of the Federal Employees' Salary Commission is a result of the suc- cessful operation of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 and H.R. 13000 also embodies most of the principles laid down in that act. Mr. Chairman, I should like to empha- size that what we are attempting to do with this legislation is to keep the pay of Federal employees on the same level as the pay of employees in private in- dustry. This is not a big giveaway in which Federal employees are being singled out for some type of preferred treatment. H.R. 13000 only establishes the machinery that will permit Federal workers to catch up and stay caught up H 9467 with their counterparts in the private economy. L recognize, Mr. Chairman, that some Members have valid questions with re- spect to the mechanics involved in the operation of the Salary Commission and the Board of Arbitration. However, I be- lieve that we should proceed as the bill is now written and, after a reasonable trial period of operation, if improvements and refinements are deemed to be in or- der, I am confident that our committee will promptly initiate them. I would urge then that we enact this bill since it will go far in solving one of the most vexing problems that has con- sistently faced our committee and the Congress. Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CORBETT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York. (Mr. BRASCO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, I strong- ly endorse H.R. 13000 and urge my col- leagues to give this important piece of legislation their wholehearted support. In 1962, the Congress enacted a land- mark pay bill which established the principle that Federal employees should receive salaries comparable to their counterparts in private industry. It would be difficult to see how anyone could dis- agree with this sound policy because, to me, it is axiomatic that if we are to have good, efficient Government agen- cies we must provide adequate incentive to attract the best employees. Unfortunately, in the years which followed, the principle of comparabilty was honored more in the breach than in the observance. It became clear to us that we must devise some system of pay setting which was isolated from the day- to-day exigencies of political maneuver- ing. While it is incumbent upon us in Con- gress to establish basic pay-fixing poli- cies, we are not well suited to the ad- ministrative task of determining and fix- ing pay schedules. In 1967, we established a semiauto- matic pay-fixing mechanism designed to bring Federal salaries up to compara- bility by this year. With a few excep- tions, we were successful. However, we are now again faced with the prospect of exhausting and time-consuming an- nual fights over pay bills. It is my opin- ion that these annual fights are of no real benefit to Congress, the Federal em- ployee, or the taxpayer. Therefore, I am very enthusiastic about the approach contained in H.R. 13000. For the first time, we are presented with an opportunity to provide a mecha- nism for the automatic adjustment of Federal pay schedules. The bill is carefully drafted to protect both the interests of the taxpayer and of the Federal employee. The Salary Commission established by the bill will consist of representatives from the ad- ministration and employee organizations. If any member of the Commission repre- senting employee organizations disagrees with the findings, that member may refer the disagreement to a Board of Arbitra- Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Ct~SMSSfDNA3L~-72 ~E0004000700U1ctober 14, 1969 Lion consisting f Members of Congress, and representa ,es from employee orga- ni7at:ons, the vii Service Commission, and the Amer, in Arbitration Associa- lion. Congress wit: maintain ultimate con- trol by retainin the right to veto recom- mendations of to Commission orBoard within 30 days fter the proposed salary 2a es are subm: ed. There is anc ter important aspect of this bill, Mr. ( airman. When the final adjustment of he three-step increase was announce earlier this year. postal employees wet left out in the cold. Through the of lated process of thecon- struction of p schedules, postal em- ployees were s1: tchanged by as much as 5300 a year. 11 all know that an emer- gency situatioi yxists in the postal field service. Part this emergency exists because of the w pay received by letter carriers and ci ks. as well as other em- ployees in the niddle and lower levels of the postal s, rice. This bill, therefore. provides emery : pioyees who 'a in the last pay postal employe advanced by tv, demands that The bill will of time it take rise to his top is necessary i; limited promos postal field set'. cent of the em level they entc Taken as a bill represents in Federal pay that I had a p ' islation. and i, moment in tht? concern for ti.. the Federal C Mr. CORBE whatever time elan from Iowa: 'Mr. GRO permission tc remarks. i icy relief to those em- e discriminated against .ise by providing that all in levels 1 through II be pay steps. Simple equity s be done. also reduce the amount .or a postal employee to lary step. This provision view of the extremely nal opportunities in the .ce, where some 80 per- oyees retire in the same d. tole, Mr. Chairman, this ,remendous step forward xing policies. I am proud t in developing this leg- passage will be a proud history of congressional dedicated employees of ernment. V. Mr. Chairman. I yield e requires to the gentle- Mr. GROSS). asked and was given revise and extend his Mr. GROSS In Chairman, the gentle- man from Ar. ma (Mr. UDALL) never spoke truer v rds when he said that this may be t. - last bill of this nature on which you 11 vote because the com- mittee has wri- an into this bill the same formula for v, t ng on pay increases that were contains., n the con-ressional, ex- ecutive, and licial pay bill. I do not need to remino any of you of the fate of those of us u ! i attempted to obtain a vote on that ill earlier this year-in February to i., more specific. We were defeated at e -y turn in our efforts to get a record to in the House on that salary grab. "'T c. Chairni actment of 1_ objective star;. and administr out to you in enacted, it w:. for postal em!, The views - in the nano! companies th+ this time on] of the legisli' t. I rise to oppose the en- 13000, which, by any ,rd. defies fiscal integrity ive commonsense. I point assing that if this bill Is be the ninth pay raise )gees in 7 years. it I express are detailed y statement which ac- 'eport on this bill. I take to reemphasize features 3n which I feel are es- pecially offensive. The principle of pay comnarability for Federal employees was established by the Congress in 1962. It is reasonable that employees of the Fed- eral Government be paid salaries com- parable to their working counterparts in private industry. In addition to stating this policy and incorporating it into law, the 1962 statute also provides for annual review of rates ofpay in pri- vate industry to determine whether Fed- eral employees remain on a comparable level and it instructs the President to make such recommendations for the re- vision of statutory pay schedules as he deems advisable. Now. for all practicable purposes, the President is to be written out and made a nonentity in this matter. Since enactment of the 1962 law. there have been seven salary adjustments. all of them upward. for Federal employees. The final adjustment in July 1969. placed Federal workers at full comparability in keening with the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures then available. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman. the gen- tleman from Iowa chided me earlier lust a little bit and I wanted to return the compliment. In the 1987 bill we gave to the President the power to make these computations In 1967 and 1968. I was quite moved by the words of the gentle- man from Iowa in that debate here in ,his Chamber lust 2 years ago. The gen- tleman said in that debate: The committee would have Congress corn- nletely abdicate Its obligations and reapon- sibiilties in the field of Federal salaries and it would. In effect, be giving the President poetdrted blank cheek to be cashed In the future in any amount. In view of what has happened here lately, we cannot afford the Luxury of such irresponsibility. Today the gentleman says we are cut- ting the President out of this. I wonder if the gentleman would com- ment on this seeming inconsistency. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman. I do not see any inconsistency at all. How many years ago was that? Mr_ UDALL. This was in 1967. in which bill we gave the President the pourer to fix the 1968 and 1969 pay raises, and the gentleman thought that wasan outrageous thing. Now the gentleman says we are taking the President out of it entirely. Mr. GROSS. I do not think I voted for the bill. Mr. UDALL. The gentleman did not vote for it. Mr. GROSS. I do not see anything in- eonsistent in my position. Mr. Chairman. the bill we have before us carries the principle of comparability one step further. It is an important step which I urge all of my colleagues to con- sider. While the legislation restates in substantial form the present policy of pay comparability. it also states that it shall be the policy of Congress that "rates of pay shall be adjusted annually." This departure from the policy of pay comparability is one which I regard as tremendously important and one which we should carefully examine. tinder the language of this legislation, should if be enacted. the pay of each Fed- eral employee in the four statutory pay systems would be adjusted each and every January 1. frpm this day forward. I might add that, while the "adjustment" can conceivably be downa$rd, I choose to regard it as a euphemism for an an- nual salary increase. The fact of the matter is, that under current law, each employee in the first three grades of the General Schedule receives an annual step increase in pay providing his service is satisfactory. And, under postal law. employees in the first six levels of the Postal Field Service also receive an annual step increase, also based on satisfactory service. Why, then. is it necessary to destroy this incentive step advancement by re- placing it with an automatic round of pay advancement each and every Jan- uary 1? Mr. Chairman, I call attention to other provisions of this legislation which rec- ommend its defeat. It denies the President any authority or responsibility in Federal employees' pay determinations. Under this bill, the Chief Executive would be powerless to deal with this vital executive function. The final recommendations of the Fed- eral Employee Commission or the Board of Arbitration under this bill become effective without the President's recom- mendation and without regard to the national priorities established through his annual budget. I do not subscribe to the proposition, advanced by the chairman of the Sub- committee on Compensation, that pay increases for Federal employees should be as "automatic as the payment of in- terest on the national debt." To suggest this analogy shows an unfortunate dis- regard for the role of the President, who Is the head of the Federal Establishment and is responsible for managing the national debt and curbing inflation. This legislation places the Congress in a subordinate and almost meaningless role In governing the tremendous ex- penditures required for Federal salary adjustments. The current annual ex- penditure for civilian and military pay- rolls is $42 billion. This legislation will add to that figure in untold amounts, for even its proponents cannot foresee what the additional cost In January 1970 will be, and every January thereafter. It is arguued, Mr. Chairman, that un- der this bill the Congress has the final say on pay adjustments. I submit that the provisions which relate to congres- sional disapproval of salary increases are a sad rehash of the same scheme under which the salaries of Members of Con- gress can be increased without any op- portunity for a congressional vote. The pending bill provides for the sub- mission 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 disap- proval. In the opening days of a new Congress, the House committee having jurisdiction of such a resolution might not even be organized within this time period and, therefore, could not even consider a resolution-as we all learned when the recommendations of the Com- mission on Executive, Legislative, and Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 14, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE Judicial Salaries were submitted early this year to the 91st Congress. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. I am glad to yield to my colleague from Virginia. Mr. SCOTT. As I understood the gen- tleman, he said this recommendation would come to the Congress on February 1. I call his attention to the statement that it is not later than February 1, and ask if it is his understanding that it could be submitted earlier than Feb- ruary 1? As I look at page 32 of the bill I see the language: Not later than February 1, 1970, and sub- sequent reports pursuant to such paragraph (5) not later than February 1 of each year thereafter. The CHAIRMAN. The time yielded by the gentleman from Iowa has expired: Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my- self 2 additional minutes. Mr. SCOTT. I submit this could be submitted on January 1, and then we would have 30 days in which to veto the proposal. That makes it even worse than the gentleman just said. Mr. GROSS. Yes. Under the terms of the language the gentleman cited that is so. I take it, however, that we would expect some time to be consumed in January in the preparation of the recom- mendations. But the whole ball of wax might be put together before January 1 and announced immediately thereafter. It is entirely possible. Mr. Chairman, by authorizing wind- fall pay increases retroactive to the first of January of each year, this legisla- tion will require annual supplemental appropriations of hundreds of millions of dollars and will adversely affect any annual budget of the President. I call attention to the fact that in only one bill, the congressional house- keeping bill; among those that have been passed by the House thus far in this ses- sion, has there been any provision for the salary increases. Not one other ap- propriation bill has included the salary increases that went into effect the first of this year, and thereafter. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is so defective and poorly conceived that I will not reiterate all of the comments which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DEa- WINSKI) and I have -set forth in our minority views, as part of the committee report. I would emphasize that on July 23, 1969, the Civil Service Commission ex- pressed firm opposition to the enactment of this legislation citing some of the reasons which I have already stated. The Bureau of the Budget furnished similar views at the same time. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the House would reject this legislation. Should it be approved by both Houses and sent to the President, he would, in my estimation, have more than suffi- cient reasons for exercising his veto powers. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentle- man from Montana (Mr. OLSEN). (Mr. OLSEN asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think this is probably the most practical pay bill that has been presented to the Con- gress. I recollect with our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL), that great objection was made that the President was setting the salaries for people in the 1967 Pay Act. I can understand that that bad to be done in 1967, but we were talking about higher salaries then than the compara- bility salaries here. We were talking about the rank and file of the Federal employees as well as the Congress there, but in that instance of the Congress we felt that the President should be the one to make the recommendation on our pay. In this instance, however, in this bill, the pay of the letter carriers and postal clerks and other employees in the Post Office Department and the classified workers in the general service can be a much more mechanical thing. There is nothing so urgent about whether the date should be February 1 when the decision must be made. However, I think that is convenient enough, because the mechan- ics are that the Bureau of Labor Statis- tics sends these proposals to this Com- mission and it must be done by January 1. It can easily be done. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is working every day at the proposition of what the pay should be in these classifications. The Commis- sion can only meet for a very few days in January to determine that they will adopt the mechanical findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, the real quality of this system is that it is abso- lutely mechanical and has been every year. It has all of the emotion taken out of it where there is a really big increase. Our big fault in the Congress is we have delayed pay raises for such lengthy pe- riods that the increase becomes big and it becomes so big that it becomes a big political issue and a very hot one. What we want to do is make it a very logical thing if we are being truthful with our employees, and I hope we are. If we are really being truthful with our employees, we are telling them that they will be paid comparably to private enterprise. That being so, we should engage the mechanical facilities of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to do this. I do not find that far removed from the very system we have in the Committee on Public Works. In that committee when we talk about highways, do we talk about the thickness of the concrete? No. Do we talk about the width of the highways? No. The mechanical thing about what we appropriate for the highways of Amer- ica is decided by the Department of Transportation. We do not go into these details in the Congress. I think we ought to make the salaries of Federal employ- ees just as remote, that is, that they be dependent upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics findings and that we say and do today exactly what we have said for at least 6 years in my time here; namely, that we are going to compete at com- parable salaries for employees in the Federal Establishment with those in the private establishment. Now, Mr. Chairman, there has been some conversation about revenue, the revenue particularly in the Post Office Department. I want to advise this House that we proceed as much and as often as we can with the postal rate recommendations of President Nixon. I want you to know that I am there but on occasion I do not get a second Member. When I do not have a second member at committee hearings, I adjourn the hearing. Now, when there are two people at the hear- ing, we shall proceed and we will have a Revenue Act. This is a message to the Postmaster General as well as to my col- leagues here. All we have to have is two people at postal rate hearings and we will proceed and we will clean it up rapidly and then we will proceed to a mark-up of the bill, depending upon the question of a quorum in that subcommittee. Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OLSEN. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. DERWINSKI. Perhaps the gentle- man would agree with me that what he should do is recommit this bill back to the committee and cooperate with the gentleman so that his Rate Subcommit- tee will move a rate package that will at least partially defray the cost of this bill. If that was the gentleman's sugges- tion, I would be glad to join him in that sort of maneuver. Mr. OLSEN. That is a very rank sug- gestion, because we have had meetings now since June on this question of rev- enue and there is not any enthusiasm on your side of the aisle for that revenue increase. When you get some enthusiasm over there, we will continue to meet and we will pass a bill. But you have got to get some enthusiasm generated on' your side of the aisle. Mr. DERWINSKI. We have had en- thusiasm. Mr. OLSEN. It has not reflected itself in the attendance at the hearings. Mr. DERWINSKI. If the gentleman will permit me to compliment him on one other point he made, the gentleman pointed out the need for comparability with private enterprise. We are trying to do this with the postal corporation con- cept. We have been heartbroken that we have not been able to reach this wonder- ful goal in the House committee. If the gentleman would have cooper- ated we could have had that enacted a long time ago. Mr. OLSEN. I think that through Postmaster General Blount's proposed corporation it would defeat the best in- terest of the employees in the manner of pay for the postal employees. Over the years there has always been opposition to an increase in pay and improvements in working conditions of the postal em- ployees. It is only because the Post Office and Civil Service Committee has voted for the employees that we have as good Post Office Department as we have right now. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OLSEN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment that to the extent that there is generated enthusiasm on the other side of the aisle for a postal rate in- Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- IIOUSV October 14, 1969 incase. you wit, iave to offset that In erins of this on, 4ember. Mr. DERWIN- I. Mr. Chairman, will he gentleman 3 r. Id further? Mr. OLSEN. , s, I yield further to the -entleman fron llinois. MTr DERWIN: KI. I have asked the -titienian to ield for one polite bservation. Mr. OLSEN. ( rtainly. Mr DERWIN KI. I wish to help the entleman cle v' up today's RECORD. I hope the gents, an was not inferring when lie said trio , no officials of the post (Bice Departmer t had ever been inter- ested in this ii tter, that he was not casting aspersi:; s at outstanding men such as former Postmaster General's O'Brien, Group uski, and others who have served in ti it capacity? Mr. OLSEN.'- ; I included them. They opposed all in ; ?ovements, too. It was only the commir ee and the Congress of the United Sta+, ; that came to the res- cue of the pi. al employees and the others by way f across-the-board in- creases for then and the classified em- ployees of this ( vernment. Mr. GROSS. r. Chairman. I yield 10 minutes to the rntleman from ','irginia i Mr. SCOTT). 'Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to evise and extend his remarks.) Mr SCOTT. r. Chairman, I find my- self in somewh:~ of a dilemma over this bill because I dry not wish to vote against any salary bii for Government em- ployees. Yet, I -i not think. in its present form, this is a 'od bill. We have a !commendation against the bill from ti Bureau of the Budget. from the Post Mee Department, from the Civil Servic Commission, and I have discussed the tter with the president of one of our i g unions, and lie feels that Governm,, t employees, other than postal worker:, ire being discriminated against in thi All, as I do. And yet I hate to oppose ny salary bill as far as Government c ployees are concerned. Therefore. it d; s constitute a dilemma. NI, OLSEN e4r. Chairman, will the ask anybody to put in an amendment, and that he was not lobbying for an amendment, and that he was not in any way going to lobby for the support of an amendment to Mr. UDAI.L's bill. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes the establishment of a Salary Commission. Under the bill the Salary Commission re- ports to the Congress not later than February 1, 1970. It could be that its report would be submitted as early as January 1, and its recommendations as to salary adjustments become effective as of the first of the year, or earlier. Adjustments can be made retroactive if the Commission in its discretion de- cides to do this. And they become ejlec- tive unless vetoed by one or the other of the bodies of Congress, Mr. Chairman, we do not work that fast, especially on the odd years, when we are attempting to organize the Con- gress. it is my recollection that this year the House committee on Post Office and Civil Service did not hold any meetings, prior to February 20 when an organiza- tional meeting was held. If the same situation should exist 2 years from now, and a report be sub- mitted as of the middle of January, we would not have met by the time that the 30 days provided in the bill within which we could veto the proposal. Now. any raises that might be auth- orized under this bill, any raises that the commission might recommend, would not be budgeted, because the budget is prepared prior to the beginning of the calendar year. We are talking about more than 2 million civilian Federal employees. We know that the law provides that the mili- tary shall have pay increases when the civilian employees are increased. We have 3.4 million military employees. So we are talking about adjustment of sala- ries of 5.4 million people without any amount being budgeted, and this would be done each year. It seems to me that this Congress over the years has delegated too many func- tions to the executive branch of Gov- ernment. It seems to me that we should rr rain our authority over the budget and over the appropriation process, to per- mit a commission to establish salaries that effect 5.4 million employees, civilian employees as provided in this bill, and military personnel because of other leg- islative acts without the Congress act- ing upon it just appears to me to be unwise. Mr. Chairman. this bill provides for increases in pay for postal workers over and above what might be recommended effective the first of each year for all Government employees. Let us just look back for a minute at the postal workers. Actually, they have not done badly. They received a 6-percent pay increase on October 1. 1967: a 5-percent increase on July 1. 1968: a 4.7-percent increase on July f of this year. Under the bill, they would receive a two-step increase on October 1 of this year. It would be retro- active back until October 1. They would receive any increase provided by the Commission as of January 1. 1970. and accelerated within-grade raise as of July 1, 1970. In other words, the time for the step-within-grade raise would be reduced from 1 to 3 years, to 26 weeks or half a year or to 52 weeks or 1 full year. Mr. Chairman, I am considering two amendments to this bill. One amendment would be to provide that the report of the Commission shall be recommendations only and not bind- ing upon the Congress and would not have the force of law until the recom- mendations went through the regular legislative process. I think it is a fine thing to have a com- mission which will advise the Congress, but I do not want to see the Congress delegate its authority over Government salaries, over the budget and over the appropriations. This is a legitimate func- tion of the Congress which I feel should be retained. In my opinion it is in the interest of the people of the country. I believe it is in the interest of the Govern- ment employees for them to be able to come to us, their Congressmen, to pre- sent us their views and then have us be responsible to them and to the people who sent us here to the Congress to repre- sent them. The second amendment which I am hesitant to offer would delete the provi- sions for postal pay raises. I feel that all Government employees should be treated in the same manner. I had considered offering an amend- ment to give the same increase provided for postal workers to the classified work- ers. to medical personnel in the Vet- erans' Administration and Foreign Serv- ice employees. But this would not be fiscally responsible. It would involve too much money going out of the Treasury and could not be justified to the public. If it is not fair to give it to all Govern- ment employees-additional pay in- creases-then in my opinion it is not fair to give these extra increases to the postal workers. I shall speak briefly when the amend- ments are offered, but gentlemen let us be fair to all Government employees and fair to the taxpayers when we are con- sidering this legislation. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii Mr. MATSUNAGA). Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 13000, the Federal Salary Comparability Act of 1969. As a member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in the 89th Congress, I was privileged to be in the vanguard of the fight to bring full com- parabilitv to our loyal Federal workers across the country. The Federal Salary Act of 1967, which projected the Princi- ple of comparability for a limited period into the future and provided for auto- matic pay adjustments in 1968 and 1969, was a direct result of that early effort to bring Federal employees' salaries in line with private industry pay rates Experience has clearly demonstrated, however. that comparability is not a stat- ic goal, which, once achieved, may be forgotten, Whether we accept the fact or not, ours is a dynamic and growing econ- omy. This means that the workers in Mr SCOTT yield to the gentleman from Montana lair OLSEN vir. Chairman, I might say to the gen,.: man from Virginia that not very long o I spoke to the head of the American deration of Government Ernpiuyees. an.r he told me that I could r,oole him as vino that he is not sup- porting and at, s not advocate a single amendment to 'Ir. UDALL's bill. Mr. SCOTT It is my understanding that you are t,, dog about John Griner, and that John ; riner told you he favored the postal em oyees getting a pay in- crease. but n: the classified workers: is that right? Mr. OLSEI I am telling you just exactly what said to me. He said he was not oppos._ , and was not proposing a single amentn tent. Mr. SCO'ITI )bviously lie is not pro- posing any air, ,dment, he is not, a Mem- ber of this bot' ,, he does not have any authority to U. )pose amendments. M-. OLSEN et me put it in the ab- solute context r which he gave it to me: He wanted r no know that he did not Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-003 000400070013-4 October 14, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE private industry will share, along with management, the increased fruits of their labors as time lapses. To keep our Federal employees abreast of their coun- terparts in the private sector, we must institute a program whereby full com- parability will be a continuing objective. H.R. 13000 provides for just such a program. Through an 11-member Fed- eral Employee Salary Commission, Fed- eral employees who come under the four statutory pay schedules, general, postal, foreign service, and physicians, dentists and nurses hired by the Veterans' Ad- ministration, would have their pay rates adjusted as necessary under a perma- nent method. The Commission would be empowered to make salary comparisons, determine salary schedules and submit them to Congress. A proposed salary ad- justment plan would be submitted to Congress on February 1 of each year, and the House and Senate would have 30 days in which to reject or revise it. If Congress does not act, the plan would become effective without further action after the 30-day period expires. The proposed Commission would be composed of representatives from the executive branch and from Federal em- ployee organizations. In the event of dis- agreement over any Commission deci- sion on the adjustment of the rates of Federal employees' pay, a seven member Board of Arbitration, made up of two House Members and two Senate Mem- bers and representatives from the execu- tive branch and employee organizations, would review the disputed decision. The decision of this arbitration board would be final and binding. Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering is also designed, in a sense, to accomplish comparability-within the Federal service. It would provide for the acceleration of step increases for postal workers. If the Post Office Department is to meet the increasingly heavy de- mands placed upon it, something must be done, and soon, to halt the alarming separation rate that has plagued the De- partment. Although the reasons for the 1967-68 separation rate of 45 percent for postal workers may be many and varied, the low level of pay and the discouraging system of advancement probably is the principal reason for the high turn-over rate. It now takes a postal worker 12 steps and over 21 years before he finally reaches the top pay level for his grade. After he gets there, the postal worker has little to make him happy, for the Bureau of Labor Statistics will tell him that he is earning about $1,900 less than the mini- mum standard for a moderate standard of living. H.R. 13000 would permit a postal em- ployee to move up to the top of the pay schedule in 8 years. It would also provide a pay increase, effective October 1, 1969, by advancing every postal worker below grade PFS-12 two steps. Higher level employees-PFS-12 and above-will be given earned step advancement on July 1, 1970, as their first step in the accelera- tion program. It is for this equity, if none other, which H.R. 13000 will accomplish that this bill deserves our support. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BROYHILL). Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pend- ing legislation. I associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) in that I, too, regret that we seem to have discriminated somewhat in this legislation insofar as the classified employees are concerned. But I do not begrudge the additional pay raise that is being granted for the postal employees. In fact, they need help. They are most deserving, and I commend them, and particularly their efficient or- ganizations for the effective work they have done in bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress, in order for us to perform the work that we have been able to do so far. I do hope, however, that in due course we can perfect this legislation, particu- larly when this Commission meets, as soon as it meets, in order to correct the inequities which already exist in the classified schedule, particularly those in the lower grades, 1, 2, and 3, that did not receive a proper increase the last two times around. Mr. Chairman, the main objection to this legislation-in fact, the only real ob- jection to the legislation-is that of cost. Of course we have some objection so far as the distribution. of the benefits, but the real problem concerning the legisla- tion is the cost itself. The cost of gov- ernment obviously is of concern to all of us-or it should be of concern. The dangers to our economy are real. We do not need to be reminded of the problems of inflation, high interest rates, tight money, and high taxes. We have been de- bating those problems for many months. But, Mr. Chairman, the legislation we have before us is not the type of legis- lation that created these problems. This bill is a result of these economic prob- lems. In fact, the problems of inflation and high cost of living have necessitated the legislation which we have before us. Mr. Chairman, we can liken ourselves to the managers of any business, and we are managers of a big business. The Government is the biggest business we have. We are playing the role of per- sonnel managers, and we have the re- sponsibility and the problem of com- peting with other businesses, or private industry, insofar as employees are con- cerned and of obtaining efficiency and adequate qualifications in employees. We cannot compete properly with low wages. Any successful businessman can tell us that. We have to compete for the efficient and more qualified employees, and we cannot do it at bargain-basement prices for those employees. The Congress has recognized this many years ago. We have stated it in leigslation many years ago. In fact, in 1967 in the pay act of that year, we di- rected the executive branch to come up with pay scales that would be comparable with those in private industry. So, Mr. Chairman, if we want to cut costs, and I think all of us recognize that is a problem of Government, the way to do it is to cut personnel, to cut out the agency, or reduce the number of Govern- ment programs, or do not create the new agency and new programs to start with. Every time we vote for a new program, we cause new employees to be hired, we cause new costs to be involved. If we want to economize after creating those pro- grams, after we vote for new agencies, we cannot then do it by holding down the proper wages and salaries of the employees, by paying so-called sweat- shop wages. To me, Mr. Chairman, this would be simply pennywise and pound foolish. We have had this same argument over and over again every time a pay raise proposal has come up. We have had our colleagues in all sincerity saying that we cannot afford the increase, that we should vote down the bill, or that we should cut it down. This has happened several times during my years as a Mem- ber of this body. Yet I wonder what would have happened if the wishes of the opponents of such legislation in the past had prevailed. I think there is no question but that we would have had real chaos so far as the personnel structure of our Federal Government is concerned. Mr. Chairman, if we can help many people in this country who are unem- ployed, and many of whom are not will- ing to work, then, certainly, we can af- ford decent wages for the employees of our Government who are willing to get out of bed and go to work in the morn- ing. Mr. Chairman, I think it is deplorable that in our postal service we would per- mit a person after working 21 years to receive a salary that is $1,864 less than what is considered a minimum standard of living. According to the committee re- port, a father of a family of four after 21 years of service could not afford a new suit of clothes once every 4 years. An employee after 4 years of service would receive only $111 more than what is considered a low standard of living. I submit, Mr. Chairman, the American people are willing to pay a proper wage and salary for employees. They can well afford it. I am in complete agreement with the gentleman from Illinois that in- sofar as postal salaries, the users of the postal service should be willing to pay. I would hope the committee will report out a bill sufficient to raise the rates so as to pay for the cost of this pay in- crease. If we want to economize and we want to cut Federal costs, I suggest we do so in many other places, but not in the standard of living and the living conditions of our Federal employees. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. PELLY). (Mr. PELLY asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, again the House must consider legislation, part of which I find fully justified, meaning the increase in pay for Federal workers, but part of which I strongly oppose, such as establishing a Commission to adjust salaries of certain Federal employees on the basis of comparability with private industry. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSF, October 14, 1969 Mr. Chairmx I think previous :speakers have _ ly justified the need for a pay incree in line with the cost of living and ii line with comparable industry salarie so I will not address my remarks to tl . On the other nd, as I did on a pre- vious occasion it 967. I must express my strong oppositivi to having Congress abrogate its cov itutional responsibili- ties on Federal p ' rates. In 1967 I vot , to recommit the bill because of the -mmission to set con- ~cressional salar and in due course what I feared x v, happen did indeed occur. Members eceived a substantial pay increase wit rut going on record as to how they vc been the proper Therefore. MI amendment is or mission portion port We move amendment doe: port any move induce the coma: out such a pros mission. Frankly, Mr. the President o approve of this comnvv-sion incl Lain terms he h Lion. As I ,av I will if that motion da for final passaga d. which would have ay to have acted. Chairman. when an red to strike the Com- the bill, I shall sup- tiowever, if such an of prevail. I shall sup- recommit the bill to tee to come back with- on for a salary com- airman. I do not think he United States will 'gisation with such a ed in it. In no uncer- indicated his opposi- Ite for recommital. but not prevail, I will vote I the bill as necessary to sustain the 1 ?Iihood of our Federal v: orkers. but I Al remain opposed to the proposed C imission. In addition. Mr. Chairman. the President vetoes the bill on this c ? provision. I shall vote Cu sustain his ve Mn GROSS. minute to the ea Mr. HOGAN i . Mr. HOGAN imissioi. to rev. marks. + Mr. iI OGAN. like to associate of my coileaet, BROYnILL and 1`M! I believe it is that the other ;sloyees are not i.: I hope that. if a Tied today to ed will promptly c I ;hare the col la.tioti I agree ,.aendiue is one :Cation But it infair that Fed iipon time after of inflation wit else does. I acn a star 7 ioveriinvent 504 anfair for Fed( upon to make .-,egment of the i. Mr. Chairma.- eusponsor of ti the suiicommitt... support H.R. I a major milesti is t.ion. Just a few w, chelm:ngly ap! '. Chairman, I yield 1 ;lernan from Maryland ked and was given per- and extend his re- r. Chairman. I should vself with the remarks from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT). -xtremely unfortunate lassified Federal em- hided in this pay raise. amendment is not car- t that result, Congress rect this inequity. srn expressed about in- also that Government the chief causes of in- ks to me to be grossly al employees be called ime to bear the brunt ut relief while no one advocate of reduced ling. but I believe it is I workers to be called rifices when no other homy is. I am pleased to be a bill and a member of headed by Mr. UDALL, 00 because I consider it in civil service legis- :s ago, this body over- )ved the civil service retirement bill, H.R. 9825-of which I was also a cosponsor-to assure a decent retirement income to career civil serv- ants. After telling these Government workers that we think they are valuable. dedicated, and deserving of these retire- ment provisions which will assure them a decent income after retiring, it would be sadly ironic if we were now to turn around and reject H.R. 13000. in effect, saying we do not think they are deserv- ing of assurances of a decent wage dur- ing their period of active service to the Government. I support all of the provisions of the bill before us, including the immediate Oily raise to most postal workers; reduc- tion of the period postal workers must wait for within-grade increases, permit- ting them to receive maximum pay in their grade in 8 years instead of 21: premium pay for certain employees for Sunday. night holiday, and overtime hours; $10 a day allowance for em- ployees commuting to remote worksites: and an allowance to Corps of Engineers employees who are prevented from carry- ing on their operations by circumstances oeyond their control. However, I am particularly proud of the features of this bill which provide for a permanent method of pay adjust- ment which will assure all Government employees a fair and just wage, in line with their counterparts in private In- dustry and taking into consideration in- flationary trends. As a member of the Subcommittee on Compensation, I have had an oppor- tunity to hear firsthand the details of numerous arguments in favor of the annual review and adjustment of pay rates for Federal employees, as well as alternative recommendations for the im- plementation of such a program. The re- "ilts of the subcommittee's assessments and those of the full committee of these recommendations are in the bill before you. Briefly. all established Salary Comniis- =inn and a Board of Arbitration would perform the functions relating to the establishment of pay comparability which are now performed by the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Com- mission. The Salary Comtission, whose mem- hers will be designated by the admin- istration and employee organizations, would be responsible for prescribing the ::cope of the comparability survey to be conducted annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and on the basis of that ,urvey, would recommend exact rates of hay for each of the several salary sched- ules. The Board of Arbitration, comprised of Members of Congress, representatives from employee organizations. and the Civil Service Commission, with a mem- ber of the American Arbitrary Associa- tion as chairman, would review the Com- mission's recommendations as well as any disagreeing views, and make the final decision on the rates of pay to be recom- mended for the particular year Involved. The rates recommended by the Corn- mission and the Board would be reported to the Congress, and will go into effect automatically in January of each year unless vetoed by the Congress. On behalf of all U.S. Government em- ployees, I urge your favorable vote on H.R. 13000. Mr. UDAI.L. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gen- tleman from New Jersey (Mr. DANIELS). (Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 13000, the Federal Salary Comparability Act of 1969. I wish to associate myself with the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, the chairman of the Subcom- mittee on Compensation and the floor manager of this bill. He did a very out- standing job. He explained in detail and with much clarity the most important parts of this bill. Anything I might say in addition thereto would be superfluous. This legislation will, once and for all, provide the method by which Federal employees will receive salaries compa- rable to salaries in private industry : thereby satisfying the promised pay pol- icy of 1962 and 1967 of equal pay for equal work. Although the policy was set in the Pay Act of 1962, it was not until the Landmark Act of 1967 that a precedent was set for a system to establish true comparability. However, it was apparent from the testimony presented to the committee during hearings this year that three ma- jor problems existed under the 1967 method of ascertaining private industry salaries. The time lag between the time that the Bureau of Labor Statistics sur- vey was taken and the reflection in sal- ary was approximately an 18-month lag. The second complaint was bias that was built into the survey by the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of Labor Statistics by not properly comparing equal positions in the Federal Govern- ment with those in the private sector. Finally, one of the greatest inequities that has ever plagued a Federal em- ployee is the inability of the postal em- ployee-letter carriers and clerks-to advance in his profession. Mr. Chairman, the Pay Act of 1967 was a major triumph, and I believe with H.R. 13000 we can remedy the shortcom- ings of the 1967 act. H.R. 13000 provides a permanent means for the automatic annual adjust- ments of the rates of pay of Federal em- ployees tinder the general schedule, the postal field service schedule, the ForeiUn Service schedules, and the schedules for physicians. dentists, and nurses in the Veterans' Administration. A Salary Commission and a Board of Arbitration is created to perform the functions relating to the establishment of pay comparability which now are per- formed by the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission. The Commission will have members designated by the administraion and employee organizations. The Board will be made up of Members of Congress and representatives from employee organi- zations, the Civil Service Commission, and the Chairman, who will be selected Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 14, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE from among the membership of the American Arbitrary Association. The Commission shall be responsible for prescribing the scope of the compa- rability surrey to be conducted annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and on the basis of that survey, will recommend exact rates of pay for each of the sev- eral salary schedules. Any member of the Commission rep- resenting employee organizations, who disagrees with the rates recommended by the Commission, may ask that the mat- ter be sent to the Board of Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration is responsible for making the final decision on the rates of pay to be recommended for the partic- ular year involved. The rates recommended by the Board or the Commission will be reported to the Congress and will go into effect auto- matically unless vetoed by the Congress. The rates will go into effect in January of each year. A report on the proposed rates of pay is to be submitted annually to the Con- gress by February 1, but shall become effective in January each year unless- Congress, within 30 days after such rates are submitted, vetoes the proposal. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, the postal employee has suffered gross in- equities. It is important to remember that opportunities for advancement for the majority of the postal. workers are extremely limited. Practically all letter carriers that remain in the postal serv- ice retire as letter carriers. Shocking as it may seem, the same letter carrier must seve a 21-year appenticeship before he can be paid the top salary. I challenge anyone to show me an employee who has as limited a chance for advancement and also cannot receive top pay for his trade or profession in at least an 8-year period. We must remedy this serious problem before it is too late, I cannot but help think that one of the major reasons for the shortcomings in the Post Office De- partment today is the lack of employee morale and harmony. It is vital for an employee to know that he has an op- portunity to advance in position or at least to the top of his position in order for him to accept and initiate respon- sibilities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a letter carrier, PFS-5, level 4, earns $111 a year more than the stand- ard set for a low standard of living. Un- less we provide a system for these em- ployees to establish self-esteem and pride, we will never solve the problems of employee morale and turnover. Mr. Chairman, section 4 of H.R. 13000 will reduce the within-grade waiting time for advancement of postal em- ployees, steps 2 through 7, for 52 calendar weeks to 26 calendar weeks. The period for employees in steps 8 and above is re- duced from 156 calendar weeks to 52 calendar weeks. This provision will be- come effective on July 1, 1970. Section 5 of the bill would grant postal employees in levels 1 through 11 an ad- vancement of two steps, effective the first pay period of this month. This would help make up for the inadequate pay raise of 4 percent that postal employees received in July, while other Federal em- ployees received a much larger percent- age. Ironically, the postal employee raise was not as much as the cost-of-living increase this year-is this reasonable or fair? Mr. Chairman, with all candor, we must compensate our loyal Federal em- ployees in a manner that is responsive to their needs and comparable with salaries in private industry. I, therefore, cannot be overzealous when I say this legislation is immediately needed. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI). (Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I as- sociate myself with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) and call the attention of the Members to our minority views. Since those views were prepared some time ago, I took the occasion, over the weekend, to review them. Everyone of us has a pride of authorship. Just to be objective, however, I glanced over the report itself, written by the ma- jority, and I found those views quite revealing. As a matter of fact, the deeper I probed through the report the more I was convinced our minority position was correct. There are some interesting statements I should like to point out. For example, the very basic purpose of the bill should cause us to stop and think. We are told in the very opening paragraph of the purpose of the bill, that this sets up a permanent method of adjusting the pay of Federal employees. What we are really saying is-this is one of the key issues-we are taking from any Chief Executive, regardless of his political party, the control over wage scales of Federal employees. I wonder how many corporate presi- dents find themselves in the position where they would have no control what- soever over the pay scales in their companies. All through the report the majority keep referring to "adjusting" pay scales. The real wording that should have been used is "raising pay scales." Adjusting is merely a diplomatic word. Can you imagine the situation, the furor, in the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, if this Commission which is to be created, and the arbitra- tion board between them produce a rec- ommendation that the pay scales should be adjusted downward? At that point you would have an eruption that would make Mount Vesuvius look like a piker. I mention this because it is merely a fact of life. Also, Mr. Chairman, having worked long and hard and struggled as a minor- ity member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, I have often advocated that what we should do es- pecially in the Post Office Department but also in any other department for agency is for some formula to be deter- mined on a regional basis, taking into account the regional variation in the cost of living. It may be true-and it is true-that the Post Office employees in H 9473 New York City, Washington, and in the Chicago area, which I represent, suffer adversely in comparison to people in similar positions in private industry. However, this is not necessarily true in most of the rural and sparsely populated areas of the country. In fact, in many of the small towns the postmaster and the one or two post office employees are among the upper-middle-class citizens in terms of income. Yet there is no prac- tical adjustment in any phase of the Federal pay scale in order to allow for the cost-of-living difference in high-cost areas such as Chicago, New York, and other cities. Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I would like to compliment the gentleman for once again, as he did in 1967, supporting our proposal for area pay differentials for postal employees. The gentleman will re- call with his support we did pass such a provision in the pay bill of 1967. We lost that provision of the bill in the other body with the explanation that the authority was already in the law to provide pay differentials for high-cost- of-living areas and that the administra- tion, if it chose to do so, could exercise this authority, thereby relieving em- ployees in districts such as the gentle- man and I represent, in relatively high wage areas. I wonder if the gentleman will indicate to us what the current ad- ministration's attitude is toward using the power it has under the law now to afford relief to employees in big cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and New York. Mr. DERWINSKI. In answer to the gentleman's question, I cannot speak for the Postmaster General or the adminis- tration as to whether or not their in- terpretation of the situation is the same as the gentleman from Michigan pro- vides. However, it is accurate to point out, I believe, that the Postmaster Gen- eral, the overworked, frustrated man he is, has been so preoccupied in trying to produce his version of postal reform that perhaps this potential adjustment has not been properly called to his attention. I think we should appoint ourselves as a committee of two to call on him shortly and see if we cannot make this adjust- ment. It might be a good argument to stop this bill in the Senate. Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I thank the gentleman for that observation. I would be very happy to join with him in his suggestion that we appoint ourselves as a committee of two to do this and sug- gest that if we were successful as a com- mittee in getting the Postmaster Gen- eral to take a position on this issue, we would be establishing a new first for this administration. Mr. DERWINSKI. I think this admin- istration has taken a lot of positions. The only problem this administration really suffers from is that its unusual diplomatic and governmental concepts are not completely appreciated by the majority which controls the Congress. After all, it is a frustrating thing that we all go through. I know myself, serving on this committee for 7 years, and rarely Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 tau the orevailin take rite easy ro however. Mr. distrac-.ed from that H.R. 13000 ewer produced bin the process it we can do sot that the eentl (!Ross, and I Fri to that possibili ity views we sin: could not be an statement evert honest and for we will test the with some amen. of them will su(+l ing worthy of s( -s I do not thin,- bill to the extei also have no ill is the final vote wot Mr- Chairman think has to b tendency of in, , branch to indul so often. We h.. about surrende-- the Executive a- complaint abouT dering its pow& vice versa. In this bill v and the legisiat: Federal salarie., justments to though the Boa tionship to poll; double abdicati words. the Cot , render and the forced to sure but wonder wh; would have haci cupant of the ~`,' tials H. H. H. I that this bill v ject to hearint suspicion that been held capt mittee but w cleared by this been an entirel:. I want to ens i think of castin upon the distitr Arizona. Mr. UDALL. gentleman yieh Mr. DERWII- tleman from Ali Mr. UDALL. my friend, the It is unbecom i knows as well every adminis! master Genera: has voted again postal employe,, t.ions have alw being for comp;, I was called t 2 years ago 134 1967 pay bill ar, gated at some i cured of budgt.; if the same thin and if the 1' H. H. H., I still ?s, Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 14, 1969 .ide. Everybody cannot to popularity. 'hairman. I am being y main point, which Is hardly the finest bill our committee. I hope attempting to amend thing to it. I must add ian from Iowa (Mr. not too optimistic as In fact, in our minor- 1 it was so defective it ided. I think that is a e would admit is quite right. However, I feel oople handling the bill ments. Perhaps a few .nly strike them as be- e attention. you could improve this to make it passable. I ons though as to what d be. one other point that I made and that is the bers of the legislative in inconsistencies ever r this big hue and cry ig our prerogatives to we also hear the same the Executive surren- to the legislative and ask both the Executive to give up control over wages, and further ad- is Board. And, even would have some rela- .al reality, it is really a of authority. In other :ess is willing to sur- irninfstration would be her and I cannot help success, if any, this bill n the case had the oc- tite House had the ini- ve a sneaking suspicion ild not have been sub- and I have a sneaking rate change which has in the Rate Subcom- h should have been ime--there would have ifferent picture. iasize that I would not nary political aspersions lisped gentleman from KI. I yield to the gen- )na. regret the cynicism of entleman from Illinois. It is unlike him. He I know the fact is that ition and every Post- )emoc rat or Republican, enacting pay raises for The budget considera- s prevented them from ability. 'wn to the White House tuse I helped draft the was chastised and casti- ngth and. in effect, ac- busting. I suggest that had been true this year esident's initials were told have been chastised and castigated again. I do not think the President has any business in fixing the policy. I think the Congress ought to fix the policy and that Is what this bill does. Mr. DERWINSKI. In recognition of the gentleman's tremendous ability and the logic which he usually shows, it seems that we should heed the suggestion of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BRoY- itILL) and take Into consideration the huge numbers of Federal employees in the Federal bureaucracy-- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Illinois has expired. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the Gentleman 2 additional minutes. Mr. DERWINSKI. We have this grow- ing bureaucracy. Perhaps if we had an administration undertaking a bipartisan attempt here in the Congress in Its treat- ment of Federal employees, the power and troublemaking activities of most of the departments and agencies could be nitased down in size and the savings which would be made available as a result of that action spread In a more equitable manner to those Federal employees who remain on the job and who do an effec- tive job. I would suggest this to the Members as a whole but perhaps overall to that very enlightened group called the Democratic Study Group, because I think at this point they should rally behind glue question of treating employees more r'ouitably by accepting the principle of fewer employees who would do a good job and we could get more done and they could be more adequately compensated, although that almost sounds like utopia. Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, r rise in support of H.R. 13000 and commend the chairman of the committee and the sponsor of the bill for bringing forth this long need legislation. Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice during the 87th Congress when Public Law 87-793 was enacted. That law was designed to provide Federal salaries com- parable to salaries in private enterprise, but we have not provided salaries in keeping with the intent of that law. The bill before us today is a step in that direc- tion but it falls short of the goal. In closing, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the intent of this bill, I believe was enacted in our bill of 1962 but much to my regret has never been implemented. I sincerely hope upon passage of this bill that finally our Federal employees may receive some measure of proper compen- sation for their dedication and work. Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman, it Is high time that we bring order to the Fed- eral payrolls. The Federal Salary Act of 1967 started us on the road to perma- nently and adequately systematizing the adjustment of salaries for Federal em- ployees. This set the precedent by having the Executive adjust the salaries of those Federal employees in four categories: UeneraI schedule, postal field service schedules, Foreign Service schedules, and the schedules relating to many in the De- partment of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration. Congress would review his adjustments and main- tain overall control. H.R. 13000 would give permanence to adjusting Federal salaries, by establish- ing a Federal Employee Salary Commis- sion -and a Board of Arbitration. This bill has many ramifications, but one of the most important is that we will no longer have to use so much valu- able time here in Congress bickering over payroll adjustments. This would mainly be the job of the Federal Em- ployee Salary Commission. The Con- gress would then vote within 30 days to reject or revise their proposal. No longer would there have to be time-consuming hearings, granting of rules from the Rules Committee and a host of other procedural matters here in Congress. This time would be spent working in other needed areas. H.R. 13000 would assure annual re- view and adjustments of the pay rates for Federal employees. The Commission and Board of Arbitration would better insure that there will be comparable pay between and among the various pay sys- tems. This bill will also give an equitable wage to the postal workers of America. Postal employees should receive fair pay and benefits. Today their income Is still below the national standard. We have a post office system that Is In trouble be- cause of backlog and overwork. If we expect to upgrade It and keep It efficient we must give incentives for qualified men to join its ranks and remain on the job for a long period of time. H.R. 13000 would permit an employee to move up to top pay In 8 years, compared with the present schedule of 12 steps over 21 years. This would be comparable to the steps in other Industries and Federal employee classifications. Mr. Chairman. I support this bill be- cause I believe it is a sound move to permanently establish a commission to deal with the problem of Federal salaries. I also feel we must grant the postal workers their just due. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I urge and hope that the House will accept and approve this bill before us-H.R. 13000- which is principally designed to imple- ment the Federal employee pay compar- ability system and establish a Federal employee Salary Commission and a Board of Arbitration. The measure also provides for an equitable comparability pay rate increase for postal employees, and attempts to modernize and tune-in with our current economy an in-step promotion system that now requires a minimum of 21 years' service in order to reach the highest bracket of salary grade. As all Members of the House know, the Federal Salary Act of 1967 provided that the President would adjust salaries in 1968 and 1969 so that all Federal employ- ees would have full comparability with -private industry pay rates by July 1969. This act also projected automatic ad- justments of Federal employees' salaries over a 2-year period, so that meanwhile the Congress would have the opportun- ity of exploring avenues and means by which it could retain final supervision and authority, but avoid the occurrence of repeatedly long and drawn-out in- volvements in an annual review and de- termination of the question of raising the pay of Federal employees. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 14, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE After 2 years of intensive study, hearings and consultations, with all par- ties concerned, the Post Office and Civil Service Committee has found that there is widespread agreement for some method that will allow and arrange for an annual review and adjustment of Federal employee pay rates. Based on all the evidence and authori- tative testimony placed before it, the committee further found and has rec- ommended that the best way to set up this annual review and adjustment of pay rates would be to establish a Federal Employee Salary Commission, composed of executive branch and employee repre- sentatives, with the opportunity for arbi- tration if conflicts develop. It is recog- nized, in this measure, that Congress should participate in this area of arbitra- tion and, therefore, it is provided that Members of the House and Senate will sit on the proposed Board of Arbitration. Mr. Chairman, in this turbulent period in our domestic history, it is obviously vitally important to provide reasonable encouragement for the maintenance of a high morale, for continued loyalty and efficiency, among our Federal employees. This measure is primarily intended to reassure these employees that the coun- try, the Congress, and the executive de- partment of the Government are inter- ested and concerned in their objectives of obtaining fair pay and fair treatment in accord with comparable standards of our American free enterprise system. I again urge the adoption of this bill because I believe it is a prudent invest- ment in the national interest, and rep- resents a most earnest congressional ef- fort, based on long and careful study, to- ward strengthening the integrity of the most essential part, the human part, of our Federal Government structure. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I vigorously support, H.R. 13000, the Pay Comparability Act of 1969. This legisla- tion establishes a permanent method of bringing the pay of Federal employees up to a level comparable with that of private enterprise. It eliminates the long- standing inequity requiring postal em- ployees to serve 21 years before reach- ing maximum pay for their work. In ad- dition, 740,000 postal workers would get a badly needed emergency 5.4 percent cost- of -living rise in salary. The reason for my support of this leg- islation is that any legislation which we enact for the purpose of raising Federal employees' salaries is based on reports which are outdated by the time we com- plete the legislative process. This prob- lem is met by H.R. 13000 through the es- tablishment of a permanent method of adjusting the pay of Federal employees who are under the general schedule, the postal field schedules, the Foreign Serv- ices schedules and the professional medi- cal schedules. Congress will play a vital role in the adjustment of these salaries because we will have a representation on the Federal Salary Commission and because the Commission will report directly to Con- gress. Through this Commission, con- gressional representatives will work closely with representatives of the execu- tive branch and, of course, with repre- sentatives of employee organizations. H 9475 The Commission will conduct and an improvement in the financing of the maintain a current salary survey. This retirement system. procedure will eliminate, or at least mini- I have also fully endorsed the principle mize, the comparability gap. And, be- of comparability and it had been my in- cause the Commission will be dealing di- tention to support the legislation now rectly with salary figures immediately being considered as a further step to- affecting the relationship of Federal to wards comparability. After careful study private salaries, a more accurate com- parability will be developed. I have become aware of the inequities existent in the present Federal salary system. None of us in Congress should have missed the point being made this year by the postal unions that the 4.1- percent pay raise effective for postal em- ployees July 1, was a pittance in relation to the services performed and the cost of living experienced by postal employees. We cannot pass the issue off on the basis that no similar service is performed in the private sector and therefore com- parability is impossible. The union rep- resentatives outlined, in hearings held this summer, the need for a meaningful change in the postal salary system. Under the provisions of H.R. 13000, the time in service necessary for postal employees to reach the top level of a grade will be cut by 13 years. The present system has discouraged qualified people from coming into the postal service and has encouraged an alarming rate of em- ployee turnover. No system can operate effectively when its employee separation rate is approximately 45 percent, as it was in 1967-68. Because the Federal Salary Compara- bility Act of 1969 is drafted for the pur- poses of creating a permanent method of salary adjustment for Federal em- ployees; of creating new incentives in the postal recruitment and retention programs through a new instep promo- tion plan; of enabling the full-fledged postal employee to soon enjoy the fruits of this legislation through special two- step advancements this year; and of in- creasing the ability of the postal em- ployee to maintain his family at a rea- sonable standard of living, I urge all Members to strive to enact this necessary and meaningful legislation as soon as possible. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives has before it today a bill-the Federal Salary Com- parability Act of 1969-which affects a very important segment of our Nation's population, the many thousands of Federal and postal employees. I do not believe that there is any Member of Congress who is not aware of the vital importance of the fine work contributed by these employees or of the necessity to provide equitable and adequate com- pensation for this work. Because of my own longstanding concern about provid- ing adequate compensation, I have al- ready joined the introduction of two bills in this Congress toward this end. The Postal Service Act of 1969, in addition to implementing the administration's proposed creation of a separate self- supporting postal system, gives postal employees the important right to bar- gain collectively directly with manage- ment over wages and working conditions. The civil service retirement bill-H.R. 9825-which has now been passed by both Houses of Congress, provides both a liberalization in retirement benefits and of the Federal Salary Comparability Act, however, I have come to the conclusion that its passage by the Congress at this time would pot ,be in the best interests of the Nation or even of those directly affected by the bill. First, in my judgment the Federal Sal- ary Comparability Act faces a certain Presidential veto, with the result that postal and other Federal employees would receive no benefit at all from its passage by the Congress. In his letter of this date to House minority leader, Congressman GERALD R. FORD, the Presi- dent indicates that- In its present form H.R. 13000 would add approximately $4.3 billion a year to federal expenditures. It would balloon expenditures in the remainder of this fiscal year by $1.5 billion. The President pointed out that ex- penditure increases of this magnitude will nullify many of the steps which have recently been taken to stabilize the econ- omy and seriously undercut the vital na- tional effort to contain inflation. He indi- cates, furthermore, that the passage of H.R. 13000 would bring about additional deep cuts in Federal services which have already been greatly reduced because of expenditure ceilings passed by this very body. According to the President, this would require a reduction in postal serv- ices and in the number of postal and other Federal employees. Second, upon reflection I believe that placing Federal salary determinations in the hands of a Federal Employe Sal- ary Commission would prove to be an unwise step-both for Federal employees and for our country. I opposed this sys- tem of salary determination for Mem- bers of Congress and believe that it pre- sents the same drawbacks when applied to any Federal employees. The collec- tive bargaining procedure which is pro- posed in the Postal Service Act of 1969 presents, in my judgment, a more equi- table and more responsible method of ar- riving at wage and salary decisions. Third, there are serious questions in my mind with respect to the way in which this legislation was handled by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Not only did the committee refuse-on October 8-to even consider the admin- istration's postal reform legislation, but it did not see fit to provide Postmaster General Blount the extra time he re- quested of the committee to give H.R. 13000 his complete study. He was not even given the opportunity to testify on the measure before final committee ac- tion. As a member of the House Post Of- fice and Civil Service Committee earlier in my congressional tenure, I did not par- ticipate in any such treatment of a Dem- ocratic Postmaster General and oppose it now in the case of the present Repub- lican Postmaster General. Many believe, furthermore, that if this bill is passed there will be no remaining impetus toward the comprehensive postal reform which is so desperately needed. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Under the Ares postal employe, chance for advai rcrvice itself ha;4 t'iiicient. I firmly immediate and t,. postal syste;; Finally, it is nt oi Congress th;+ t.ral employees he inequitable ;irovides greats: clerks and letter Federal employ Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE October 14, 1969 t postal system many never have a real lement and the postal ecome increasingly in- aelieve, therefore, that mprehensive reform in is mandatory. secret among Members there are other Fed- lo consider this bill to ward them In that it increases for postal :arriers than for other s in comparable posi- ble, needed legislation for postal em- ployees must necessarily invite a com- parison with similar legislation passed by Congress In 1967. At that time, the Post Office and Civil Service Commission, of which I was a proud member, voted rate increases to fully cover the salary increases specified in the bill. This was responsible action that permitted Presi- dent Johnson to sign that bill into law. Yet, 2 years later the committee has com- pletely failed in its responsibility to in- crease postal revenues to cover neces- sary postal pay increases. This failure to act is clearly responsible for the Presi- dent's protected veto and in my view has done substantial disservice to this Na- tion's dedicated postal employees. Mr. Chairman, I will vote to recommit this bill so the committee will face its responsibility and come up with a postal revenue package to guarantee the Presi- dent's support of this needed compara- bility legislation. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur- ther requests for time, pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read the com- mittee substitute amendment printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of P.epresentatires of the United States of Amer- ica in Congress assembled, That this Act 'tray be cited as the "Federal Salary Com- parability Act of 1969". Srr. 2. Sections 5301 and 5302 of title 5, United States Code, are amended to read as follows : .. 5301. Policy - (aI It is the policy of Congress that rates of pay for employees within the purview of his section be based on the principles that- Ii there be equal pay under each pay system for sul)stantlally equal work: "t2) pay distinctions be maintained, In keeping with work distinctions; and "(3) rates of pay be comparable, on a na- tional basis. with private enterprise rates of pay for the same levels of work. "fbl Rates of pay shall be adjusted an- nually, in accordance with the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this section and the procedures prescribed by section 5302 of this title, for those employees subject to--- -(11 section 5332 of this title, relating to c..'noloyees under the General Schedule; ?(2) part III of title 39, relating to em- ployees in the postal field service: "(3) sections 867 and 870 of title 22, re- lating to officers. staff officers, and employees in the Foreign Service of the United States; ::lid "(4i section 4107 of title 38, relating to physicians, dentists, and nurses in the De- partment of Medicine and Surgery. Veterans' Administration. 5302. Federal Employee Salary Commis- sion: Federal Employee Salary Board of Arbitration "(a) There is established. as a permanent agency of the Government, a Federal Em- ployee Salary Commission, referred to as the 'Commission'. "(b) The Commission shall be composed of 8 members and 3 associate members, as follows: "(I) 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 Gen- eral: "(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 serv- ice: "(7) 1 designated by an employee organi- zation. other than an organization desig- nating a member pursuant to paragraph (5) or (6) of this subsection, selected each year by the Chairman of the Civil Service Com- mission on a rotating basis after consultation with representatives of such employee orga- nizations as the Chairman determines ap- propriate; and "(8) 3 associate members, one each des- ignated by employee organizations, 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 appro- priate. A member of the Commission has- "(A) 1 vote, If designated under para- graph (21, (3), (4), (5), or (7) of this sub- section; "(B) one-half vote. 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 Commission 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 Commission shall, In accordance with the policy set forth in section 5301(a) of this title, after consultation with repre- sentatives 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- "(AI which will develop valid comparisons of (iI the rates of pay for employees within the purview of section 5301(b) of this title and (u 1 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 De- partment of Labor; "(2) prepare annually a comparative state- ment 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; "(31 determine and prescribe, on the basis of information and data disclosed by the an- nual comparability pay survey, the exact national rates of pay for such employees which are necessary to effect the policy set forth in section 5301(a) of this title; "(4) review, annually, the comparability of the rates of pay and step increase policies within and between the various pay sys- tems for such employees, taking into con- sideration such matters as the Commission determines have affected or may affect the comparability, including, but not limited to- AI within-grade rates of pay employees are receiving due to differing length of serv- ice requirements for step Increases, step in- crease without regard to length of service, or different number of within-grade steps; tB1 different rates of pay under the var- ious pa)- systems for the same level of work; "(C) pay distinction not being main- tained in keeping with work distinction, the degree of responsibility placed, the scope and variety of tasks involved, or the extent of decisionmaking authority required; and '(D) premium pay policies; and ions. For these re:, Dns, Mr. Chairman, I :trust regrettabi. oppose this legislation at this time. 71! s decision has been a t)ainful one, s: 1 one which I have reached only al'< r much soul searching. I remain comp:' rely determined, how- ccver, to work ti ugh postal reform and ether legislatic to achieve full com- ()arabiiity for i, tal and other Federal employees. Mr. GILBER Mr. Chairman, I rise ii support of H 13000. Historically it is a fact that post;~ employees have always received too litt_t too late. With regular- ity, my office r(. 'ives the justified com- plaints of posts workers and their fam- ilies about roar^+ iuate salaries and the spiraling cost i living. My mail these days is full of tatements from postal employees who tmind us that because of inflation, the 1-percent increase they received in Jul:- ),f this year gives them less purchasini tower than they had a year ago. H.R. 13000 .1 not correct the ad- mitted inadegi;; ;ies of the postal pay schedules. but certainly will help in resolving the p+" !nnial problem of what Congress is to about the pay of these workers. I am ipressed by the section of H.R. 13000 w: ch establishes a Federal Wage Commissi~ i and I am glad to know that the uniol which represent the workers will hf- i a voice on that Com- mission. Congress has- 1 several occasions con- sidered legislai .n to raise salaries of postal and oil, ' Federal workers to a level comparab! with wages being paid in the private tor. Because of budget- ary restrictioi. our intent has never been carried on' In my opinv , postal workers should not have to car y the Nation's economy on their should+ s as well as the tremen- dous mail vol ie for which they are responsible. it is most die uraging for the Govern- ment workers io reside in my congres- sional district I note the tremendous gains made by ieir neighbors and those to whom they ' liver the mail, and then to be denied a (stifled increase in their wages. Mr Chairn, i, I fully support H.R. 13000 and in r doing I agree that wage adjustments o? Government employees should be autt,l atic and not be delayed by the redtape' vhich accompanies pas- sage of a new w each year, Mr RUPPE ?tr. Chairman, President Nixon has clew ly and specifically indi- cated that he its veto the Federal Sal- ary Comparab y Act of 1969 as reported out that the immittee on Post Office and Civil Serv ?. Any veto of this desira- Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 A proved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 14, 196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 9477 "(5) except as provided in subsection (e) "(A) the decision of the Board with respect "(4) Retroactive pay shall be paid by rea- and subsection (g) of this section, prepare to the rates of pay submitted by the Com- son of this section only in the case of an and submit annually to the Congress a re- mission; individual in the service of the United port setting forth- "(B) the reasons for the decision of the States (including service in the armed "(A) the comparison of rates of pay prep- Board; and forces) or the government of the District of ared pursuant'to paragraph (2) of this sub- "(C) such rates of pay as the Board shall Columbia on the day immediately following section; have determined to be necessary to conform the close of the 30-day period specified in "(B) the exact national rates of pay for with the policy set forth in section 5301(a) subsection (h) (1) of this section, except such employees prescribed by the Commis- of this title. that such retroactive pay shall be paid- sion in accordance with paragraph (3) of this The decision of the Board, and such rates of "(A) to an employee who retired, during subsection; and pay as it may prepare in accordance with the period beginning on the first day of the "(C) recommendations for legislation as this paragraph, shall be final and conclusive. first pay period which began on or after may be necessary to achieve the comparabil- ity policy set forth in section 5301 (a) of this (2) of f this (o is Except subsection, the Cc in ission shall pJanuary f and the ending o close on of the the day 3 30-day s title or to achieve comparability within and us the fib fimsemrepport shall period following specified ocified in subsection (1) of this between pay systems for employees within susubmit to the ra Congress tr ) of peeriod. rendered d ant to paragraph (b) of subsection (c) of section, for services during that the purview of section 5301(b) of this title. this section, based on the 1969 national sur- period, and "(d) (1) In the exercise of the authority vey of professional, administrative, technical, "(B) in accordance with subchapter VIII and the performance of the duties vested in and clerical pay, not later than February 1, of chapter 55 of this title, relating to set- and imposed upon the Commission by this 1970, and subsequent reports pursuant to tlement of accounts, for services rendered, section, the Commission- duri the ary of the fl period beginning on the first day "(A) shall seek the views, in such manner such paragraph (5) not later than Febru- as the Commission may provide, of such em- "(2) 1 of each year thereafter. after January 1,p and ending began on or ployee organizations as the Commission con- of (2) pay by In the the case Commission the submission t to the he Board rd purr- immediately following the close on of the the 30day siders appropriate; and pur- -" suant to subsection (e) of this section, the day period specified in subsection (h) (1) of (B) give thorough consideration to those Commission, immediately upon receipt of the this section, by an employee who died dur- views. in that "(2) All decisions of the Commission shall final and conclusive decision of the Board, g period. be by a majority vote. The votes shall be shall submit to the Congress the decision of Such retroactive pay shall not be considered recorded. A record shall be maintained of the the Board and such rates of pay as the Board as basic pay for the purposes of subchapter views, assenting or dissenting, of the mem- shall have determined to be necessary to III of chapter 83 of this title, relating to civil bers of the Commission. The record of votes conform with the policy set forth in section service retirement, and any other retirement and views shall be available for public inspec- 5301 (a) of this title. - law or retirement system, in the case of any tion and copying pursuant to section 552 of "(h) (1) Except as provided in paragraph such retired or deceased employee. (2) of this subsection, all or part as the "(5) For the of this title. ( purposes paragraph (4) "(e) If a member of the Commission deter- case may be) of the rates of pay submitted of this section, service in the Armed Forces, mines, and advises the Commission, that to the Congress as provided in subsection in the case of an individual relieved from the rates of pay applicable to the appropriate (c) (5) or subsection (g) of this section be- training and service in the Armed Forces or pay system, as the rates are prescribed by come effective at the beginning of the first discharged from hospitalization following the Commission, are not in conformi with pay period that begins on or after the first such training and service, includes the period ith day of the year in which the rates of pay provided by law for the mandatory restora- conformity the policy set forth in section 5301(a) of w this title, the Commission shall submit, not later are submitted; but only to the extent that, ti,- of the individual to a position in or than February 1 following that determiner within 30 days after the rates of pay are sub- under the Government of the United States t n, the rats of pay to the Board dst deter mitted to the Congress- or the government of the District of Colum- by subsection (f) of this section for con- "(A) there has not been enacted into a bia. sideration by the Board. law a statute establishing rates of pay other (1) Each member and each associate "(f) (1) There is established, as a perms- than those proposed by all or part of such member of the Commission and each member neat agency r the tushed, Government, a Fedora- recommendations, of the Board is entitled to travel expenses, Employee agency of Arbitration, Fe re- "(B) neither House of Congress has passed including a per diem allowance in accord- Empl to as alafy the `Board', Board of which Aeshall iocore- a resolution specifically disapproving all or ance with section 5703(b) of this title. Each d of 7 members as follows: part of the recommendations, or such member or associate member who is posed 2 membeof the United States Sett- "(C) both. not a Member of Congress or an employee ate "(A) designated Members by the the pro temper- "(2) Any part of the recommendations, is entitled to pay at a rate equal to the of the Senate, each from different political in accordance with express provisions of the per diem equivalent of the maximum rate of party; recommendations, may be made operative on basic pay of the General Schedule for each . "(B) 2 Members of the United States a date earlier than the date on which the day he is engaged in the performance of House of Representatives designated by the recommendations otherwise are to take services for the Commission or the Board, Speaker of the House, each from a different effect. as the case may be, except that the member political party; "(3) (A) The rates of pay of United States from the American Arbitration Association "(C) 1 designated by the Chairman of the attorneys and assistant United States at- may be paid the usual fees prescribed by Civil Service Commission; torneys whose annual salaries are fixed pur- that association. "(D) 1, who may serve not more than 2 suant to section 548 of title 28 shall be in- "(j) (1) Without regard to the provisions consecutive years, designated by a majority creased, effective on the first day of the first of this title governing appointments in the vote of the presidents of the four employee pay period which begins on or after the first competitive service and of chapter 51 of this vote of the which have designated four ed meme day of the year in which increases become title and subchapter III of this chapter, re- orgs iat ens serving on the Commission effective pursuant to this section, by lating to classification and General schedule under currently yp vin on h Co of sub- amounts equal, as nearly as may be practi- Pay rates-- under (b) paragraph this section with each pee- cable, to the increases provided pursuant to "(A) the Commission and the Board each section the employee organization under this section for corresponding rates of pay. may appoint an Executive Director and fix id paragraph ent of (5) m or (7) y having one vote and "(B) Notwithstanding section 665 of title his basic pay at the rate provided for level each president of the organizations under 31, the rates of pay of employees of an Ex- V of the Executive Schedule by section 5316 " E 1 designated b the District of Columbia whose rates of pay "(B) with the approval of the Commission ( ) by a majority of the are fixed by administrative action pursuant or the Board, as appropriate, the Executive members of the Board referred to in para- to law and are not otherwise increased pur- Director may appoint and fix the basic pay graphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of this sub- suant to this section are hereby authorized (at respective rates not in excess of the maxi- section from the membership of the Amer- to be increased, effective on the first day of mum rate of the General Schedule) of such ican Arbitration Association, who shall be the first pay period which begins on or after additional personnel as may be necessary to Chairman of the Board. the first day of the year in which increases carry out the functions of the Commission "(2) The Board shall consider the rates become effective pursuant to this section, by or of the Board, as applicable, and may ob- of pay submitted to it by the Commission amounts not to exceed the increases pro- taln services of experts or consultants in pursuant to subsection (e) of this section vided pursuant to this section for corre- accordance with section 3109 of this title, and determine whether or not the rates of sponding rates of pay in the appropriate but at rates for individuals not to exceed pay conform with the policy set forth in sec- schedule or scale of pay. that of General Schedule 18. tion 5301(a) of this title. If the Board deter- "(C) This section does not authorize any "(2) Upon the request of the Commission mines that the rates of pay do not so con- increase in the rates of pay of employees or of the Board, the head of any depart- form, the Board shall prepare the rates of whose rates of pay are fixed and adjusted ment, agency, or establishment of any pay as will conform with that policy. The from time to time as nearly as is consistent branch of the Government of the United Board shall transmit to the Commission not with the public interest in accordance with States may detail, on a reimbursable basis, later than the 30th day following the date prevailing rates or practices. any of the personnel of such deament, the Board received the rates of pay submitted "(D) This section does not impair any au- agecy, or establishment to a si t the Com- to it by the Commission, a report setting thority pursuant to which rates of pay may mission or the Board, as appropriate, in car- forth- be fixed by administrative action. rying out its functions. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R0004000703- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE q,1cto er 14, 1969 (k) The Cofni sion and the Board may se t:~- United St ?a mails in the same man- ier ante upon iii.- ante conditioiis as other 'teparttnefits anu. 'Agencies of the United tee. +?:I) The Adn- istrator of the General ices shall pro le administrative support ::'r'ace.--. for the i mmission and the Board re?nibursabl, asis. in The rate of pay that take effect utuer anus sexaiv- hall modify. supersede, or rs'iider inapplica~.- , as the case may be, to _.e esceiit incon tent therewith- 7 , a_t provis: is of law enacted prior to Sie effective date' 'r dates of all or part (as ate case may be of such rates (other than any provision of w enacted in the 30-day period specified paragraph (1) of subsec- ILOlt (it) or this lion with respect to such rates) : and "(2) any prior !ontmendatioffs or adjust- ments which to. effect under this section or prior provisivi if law. "fill The rat, of pay that take effect under this sectii shall he printed in- "M the Statu - s at Large in the same vol- time as public la.: '(2) the Fed," I Register: and "(31 the Code f Federal Regulations. "(o) Any inc, ise in rates of pay that takes effect un- this section is not an equivalent mere ' In pay within the mean- ing of section 1 5 of this title or section 3552 of title 39. "(p) Any rata of pay that takes effect under this sectic~r shall be initially adjusted. effective on the ective date of such rate of pay, under cony, ion rules prescribed by the President or by h agency as the President may designate. "(q) The rate f pay of personnel subject to sections 210 d 213 (e)(cept suosections (d) and (e)) o the Federal Salary Act of 1967 181 Stat. 6 635: Public Law 90-206), and any minims or maximum rate, limita- tion, or allowa. )applicable to any such personnel, shall ? adjusted, effective on the first day of the 3t pay period which begins on or after the is t day of the year in which increases becon. effective pursuant to this section. by amos, is which are equal, insofar as practicable ;a t with such exceptions as may lie necessat to provide for appropriate relationships t weep positions, to the amounts of the - ljustments made pursuant to this section zy the following authori- ties-- "(1) the Dix . for of the Administrative Office of the Ut, ed States Courts, with re- spect to the ju ' ial branch of the Govern- nient- and "(2) the Sect try of Agriculture, with re- spect to indivioo As employed by the county committees est lished under section 590h (b) of title 16. Such adjustnte- s shall be made in such manner as Lift' Lppropriate authority con- cerned deems :isable and shall have the force and effect statute.". SEC. 3. The t::? a of contents of subchapter 1 of chapter 53 title 5. United States Code, is amended by king out- "5302. Annual n orts on paycomparability.- anti inserting it eu thereof- "5302. Federal 'r?.. iployee Salary Commission: i?'eder Employee Salary Board of 4rhitr, , ion.". 4. Secti?, 3552(a) of title 39, United States Code, is mended to read as follows: aIII) Ec employee subject to the Postal Field Si-- ice Schedule and each em- ployee subject - the Rural Carrier Schedule who has not re . hed the highest step for his position shall I ' advanced successively to the next higher ste is follows: ?%A) to stet; 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, and 7-at the beginning of ' . first pay period following the completion: -f 26 calendar weeks of sat- i,factorv servio and ?.(B) to steps 8 and above-at the begin- n?.ng of the first pay period following the completion of 52 calendar weeks of satis- factory service. " 121 The receipt of an equivalent increase clueing any of the waiting period specified in this subsection shall cause a new full wait- ing period to commence for further step in- creases. "13) An employee subject to the Postal Field Service Schedule who returns to a posi- tion 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 con- tinuous in the lower level.''. SEC. 5. (a) Each employee in levels I through 11 of the Postal Field Service Sched- ule and each employee subject to the Rural C nrrier Schedule- (1) who is in a step below the 2 top steps of his level shall be advanced 2 steps: or 121 who is in either of the 2 top steps of his level shall receive basic compensation at a rate equal to his rate of basic compensa- tion in effect Immediately prior to the ef- fective date of this subsection plus the amount of 2 step increases of his level. Changes In levels or steps which would oth- erwise occur on the effective date of this subsection without regard to the enactment of this subsection shall be deemed to have occurred prior to adjustments under this subsection, Each such employee who receives an adjustment under this subsection shall commence a new full waiting period, for fur- 1 her step increase purposes under section 3552(a) of title 39, United States Code, on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after July 1, 1970, and service by such an employee on or after the effective date of this section and prior to the beginning of such pay period In July 1970 shall not be cred- ited for such step increase purposes. (h) For the purposes of the initial appli- cation of section 3552(a) of title 39, United States Cade, as amended by section 4 of this Act. credit for satisfactory service performed by an employee In levels 12 or above of the Postal Field Service Schedule since his last step Increase prior to the effective date of section 4 of this Act, shall be granted in an amount not in excess of the amount of service required for a one step Increase a))- plicable to the step category of the em- ployee. lc) The Postmaster General shall advance each employee In level 12 or above of the Postal Field Service Schedule- (1) who was In level 12 or above on the effective date of this section and who did not receive a two-step increase pursuant to this section; (2) who Is senior with respect to total postal service to an employee in the same poet office (A) who received a two-step increase pursuant to this section and (B) who Is pro- moted to the same level on or after the effective date of this section: and (3) who is in a step in the same level be- low the step of the junior employee de- scribed in clauses (A) and (B) of subpara- graph (2) of this subsection. much advancement by the Postmaster Gen- eral shall be to the highest step which Is held by any such junior employee. Any in- crease under the provisions of this subsec- tion i, not an equivalent increase within the meaning of section 3552 of title 39, United States code. Credit carried prior to advance- ment under this subsection for advance- ment to the next step shall be retained for teal amounts of irregular, unscheduled, over- time duty with the employee generally being responsible for recognizing, without super- vision, circumstances which require him to remain on duty, shall receive premium pay for this duty on an annual basis instead of premum pay provided by other provisions of this subchapter, except for regularly sched- uled overtime, night, and Sunday duty, and for holiday duty. Premium pay tinder this paragraph is determined as an appropriate percentage. not less than 10 per centunl nor more than 25 per centum, 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 fre- quency and duration of irregular unsched- uled overtime duty required in the position.". SEC. 7. la) Section 5942 of title 5, United States Cxie, is amended to read as follows: "j 5942. Allowance based on duty at remote worksi tee "Notwithstanding section 5536 of this title, an employee of an Executive department or independent establishment who 1s assigned to duty, except temporary duty, at a site so remote from the nearest established com- munities or suitable places of residence as to require an appreciableamount 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 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.". (b) Notwithstanding section 5536 of title 5. United States Code, and the amendment made by subsection (a) of this section, and until the effective date of regulations pre- scribed by the President under such amend- ment- (1) allowances may be paid to employees under section 5942 of title 5, United States Code. and the regulations prescribed by the President under such section, as in effect Immediately prior to the effective date of this section: and (2) such regulations may be amended or revoked in accordance with such section 5942 as in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this section. (c) The table of contents of subchapter IV of chapter 59 of title 5, United States Cole, is amended by striking out- "5942. Allowance based on duty on Cali- fornia offshore Islands or at Nevada Test Site." and inserting in lieu thereof- "5942. Allowance based on deity at remote worksites.". SEC. 8 (a) Subchapter IV of chapter 59 of title 5, United States Code, Is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: 5 5947. Quarters, subsistence, and allowances for employees of the Corps of Engi- neers, Department of the Army, en- gaged in floating plant operations "(a) An employee of the Corps of Engi- neers, Department of the Army, engaged in floating plant operations may be furnished quarters or subsistence, or both, on vessels, without charge, when the furnishing of the quarters or subsistence, or both, is deter- mined to be equitable to the employee con- cerned. and necessary in the public interest, in connection with such operations. , '(b) Notwithstanding section 5538 of this title, an employee entitled to the benefits of subsection (a) of this section while on a ves- sel. may be paid, in place of these benefits, an allowance for quarters or subsistence, or both, when- step increase purposes under such section 3552. Sec. 6. Section 5545(c) (2) of title 5. United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "(21 an employee in a position in which the hours of duty cannot be controlled ad- ministratively, and which requires substan- Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 14, Y96~proved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE "(1) adverse'weather conditions or simi- lar circumstances beyond the control of the employee or 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 while it is un- dergoing repairs. "(c) The quarters or subsistence, or both, or allowance in place thereof, may be fur- nished or paid only under regulations pre- scribed by the Secretary of the Army.". (b) The table of sections of subchapter IV of chapter 59 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding- "5947. Quarters subsistence, and allowances for-employees of the Corps of Engi- neers, Department of the Army, en- gaged in floating plant operations." immediately below- "5946. Membership fees; expenses of attend- ance at meetings; limitations.". (c) The Act entitled "An Act to authorize the furnishing of subsistence and quarters without charge to employees of the Corps of Engineers engaged on floating plant opera- tions", approved May 13, 1955 (69 Stat. 48; Public Law 35, Eighty-fourth Congress) is repealed. SEC. 9 (a) This section, the first section, and sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act. (b) Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of this Act shall become effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after Octo- ber 1, 1969. (c) Section 4 of this Act shall become ef- fective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after July 1, 1970. Mr. UDALL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the committee amendment be dispensed with, and that it be printed in the RECORD in full and be considered as read and open -.to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona? There was- no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. UDALL Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. UDALL: On page 38 strike out all of subsection (q), beginning with line 15 down through line 11 on page 39, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(q) (1) The rates of pay of personnel subject to sections 210 and 214 of the Fed- eral Salary Act of 1967 (81 Stat. 633, 635; Public Law 90-206), relating to Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation County Com- mittee employees and to certain employees of the Legislative Branch of the Govern- ment, respectively, and any minimum or maximum rate, limitation, or allowance ap- plicable to any such personnel, shall be ad- justed, effective on the first day of the first pay period which begins on or after the date on which adjustments become effective un- der this section by amounts which are Iden- tical, insofar as practicable, to the amounts of the adjustments under this section for corresponding rates of pay for employees subject to the General Schedule, by the fol- lowing authorities- "(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to individuals employed by the coun- ty committees established under section 590h(b) of title 16; "(B) the Financial Clerk of the Senate, with respect to the United States Senate; H 9479 "(C) the Finance Clerk of the House of branch, law clerks of circuit and district Representatives, with respect to the United .,?,a ......---:-- ___,_ ... - respect to the office of the Architect of the Mr. Chairman, I do not know of any Capitol. great opposition to the amendment, and The provisions of this section shall not be I would hope that it would be agreed to. construed to allow adjustments in the rates Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the of pay of the following officers of the United gentleman yield? States House of Representatives: Parliamen- Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman tartan, Chaplain., Clerk, Minority Clerk, Ser- from Missouri. gean-t at Arms, Minority Sergeant at Arms, Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Doorkeeper, Minority Doorkeeper, Postmaster, Minority Postmaster. the gentleman's statement, and in line "(2) Notwithstanding section 665 of title of clarification might I ask the gentle- 31, the rates of pay of employees in and under man-as the author of the bill-one fur- the Judicial Branch of the Government, ther question pertaining to page 24, lines whose rates of pay are fixed by admiinstra- 22 through 25, where it says in effect Live action pursuant to law and are not that the rates of pay shall be adjusted otherwise adjusted under this section may be annually, and then it refers to the phy- adjusted, effective on the first day of the first day of the first pay period which begins siclalLS, dentists, and nurses, in the De- on or after the date on which adjustments partment of Medicine and Surgery, Vet- become effective under this section, by erans' Administration. amounts not to exceed the amounts of the Is there any particular reason why adjustments under this section for corree- these particular categories of talented pending rates of pay.- The limitations fixed and scarcely trained personnel were by law with respect to the aggregate salaries picked out in the Veterans' Administra- payable to secretaries and law clerks of cir- tion specifically, rather than in an cult and district judges shall be adjusted, any effective on the first day of the first pay other, for example, the dentist and phy- period which begins on or after the date on sicians in the Public Health Service? which adjustments become effective under Mr. UDALL. The dentists, physicians, this section, by amounts not to exceed and so forth in other departments are the amounts of the adjustments under this covered in the classified service; they are section for corresponding rates of pay.", in the classified salary system. The Vet- Mr. UDALL (during the reading). Mr. erans' Administration has a separate sal- Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that ary system for these particular people, the further reading of my amendment be and we simply bracketed them into the dispensed with, and that it be printed in automatic machinery so that a nurse or the RECORD and open to amendment at dentist or physician in the Veterans' Ad- the request of the gentleman from Ari- zona? There was no objection. (Mr. UDALL asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. UDALL, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple amendment which I believe will arouse no great controversy. In the 1967 act we provided a system by which comparability raises were given to the Federal classified employees, the postal employees, and so on. We also had a section which permitted and required that the employees of the legislative branch be given the same proportionate increases once other determinations were made. In the bill the committee reported, be- cause of some confusion, and because of some additional study on the mechanics that I had wanted to make, there was no such provision. This is a simple amend- ment which will require the disbursing officer and financial clerk in the House and Senate to determine what adjust- ments have been made in the classified pay of the Federal executive depart- ments, and then take the same adjust- ments for the employees in the legisla- tive branch. This would mean that if a $10,000 clerk downtown received a 3-percent increase on some January, then a $10,000 staff employee or committee employee in the Congress would receive a 3-percent in- crease. It also includes in the machinery two types of employees in the Federal ministration would get the same increase as a nurse or a doctor or dentist in the Public Health Service, who are already Included. Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gen- tleman will yield further, do I under- stand then that the intent, insofar as the commission is concerned, and the various boards of appeal, or arbitration, that are set up in this bill, is so that there will be some equalization of pay for those of like talents, and equal qual- ity of skills, who are throughout the entire Government by this proposal? Mr. UDALL. This is basically the in- tent of this proposal. We have had some incidents where we have had some nurses and nurses' assistants, as I am sure the gentleman is aware of, in one branch of the Government who are getting less than the same comparable people in other branches. Mr. HALL. Carrying the colloquy one step further, there has actually been proselyting between the various branches of the Government because of inequities so far as this particular area is con- cerned, but the ones singled out here have apparently been the leaders in in- come and have experienced those activi- ties, and as to their amount of income to date, and I wondered if it would work in the reverse, or if the others would be brought up tothose even though they are covered by other pay acts? Mr. UDALL. The intention is to equal- ize them, I will say to the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL). - The amendment was agreed to. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 H 9480 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE e o er 1 ~, 1969 t',i f:NUhSEN7 F'YEa51) BY MR. GROSS Mr. GROSS. 1 r. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk rear as follows: Amendment oil. 'ed by Mr. GROSS: vn page :12, beginning wi'- line 14. strike out all of line 14 and all th, follows down through the rend of line 7 on age 33 and insert in lieu L hereof the follo 19: "(h 1 11) 't'he es of pay submitted to the congress as proc,, ed in subsection (c) (4) or _:ubsection (g) ,;; this section shall become effective at the eginning of the first pay period which be':.;: is on or after the adoption by both House: of Congress (within the 60 day period foil wing the date on which the rates of pay an, ubmitted to the House of itepreaentatives id the Senate). by the yeas and nays of a cot: urrent resolution stating in effect that the nate and House of Repre- sentatives appr s such rates of pay." " 12 ! For the -rposes of paragraph i 1) of this subsection, n the computation of the 60 day period are shall be excluded the days on which ci her House is not In session because of adjo,t lunent of more than 3 days to a day certaiti or an adjournment of the Coneress sine di. The rates of pay submitted to the Congret shall be delivered to both Houses of the ( egress on the same day and shall be delivers to the Clerk of the House of Representati, es if the House of Repre- sentatives is nor in session and to the Secre- tary of the Se : to if the Senate is not In session." Or. page 33, of the year" an on": (hi page 33. 1. the year in" an on"; On page 38, the year in" a: on.,. The CHAII'' the entlemar. support of his i ter. GRO.: mission to marks.) as 12, strike out "first day insert in lieu thereof "date e 22, strike out "brat day of insert in lieu thereof "date e 21, strike out "first day of insert in lieu thereof "date [AN. The Chair recognizes from Iowa tMr. GROSS i in mendment. asked and was given per- 'ise and extend his re- Mr. GROSf Mr. Chairman, in support of the amend vent that I have offered, may I say it 2onforms with the policy expressed by he gentleman from Ari- zona (Mr. Uvi L) in the hearings before his compensa ion subcommittee. The purpo, of this amendment is to require that longress take affirmative action, not it gative action, In connec- tion with the' approval of pay increases recommendt-o to it by the so-called Fed- eral Employe Salary Commission. The Congi ss should not under any circumstance avoid its responsibility In this matter, it did In connection with increasing e salaries of Members earlier this tr. We were led then to be- lieve that w? would be able to vote on that Issue in an orderly manner, but it certainly did lot work out that way. ,Is the nil' know, the (- judicial pay this year wig: at,ves was c proposal woi3 of Congress. approve a 60 days a.fty received an, Fr'deral em.) effective. viy amen, there will bc' nbers of the House well rcutive, congressional, and All went into effect early e the House of Represent- iveniently on vacation. My d require that both Houses y a yea-and-nay vote, shall .icurrent resolution within the Commission report Is before pay Increases for iyees could possibly become nent further provides that to retroactive pay Increases as provided for in the present language On request of Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD, of the bill, H.R. 13000. and by unanimous consent, Mr. GROSS There is precedent for the amendment was allowed to proceed for 5 additional I am proposing. A similar provision is minutes.) contained in the Trade Expansion Act of Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chair- 1962, title 19, section 1981, where the man, will the gentleman ylel~d? procedure I suggested in my amendment Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman is used In connection with the imposition from Michigan. of duties or other import restrictions. Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. The Point Mr. WI LIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chair- that I am trying to examine the gentle- man, will the gentleman yield? man in the well about-and I fully ap- Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman. preciate the good faith of his amend- Mr. WIId.IAM D. FORD. Did I under- meat-I want to say that I agree with stand the gentleman to say that in his you, and I would have been very happy opinion. if a provision such as he is now to vote on the Issue of pay, and that we proposing in this bill had been included needed it. I feel it is fully justified, and in the bill covering pay for the executive I went on record publicly. I would be branch. the judiciary, and Congress, it most happy to do that in this Chamber. would be unlikely that we would have I think wherever possible we should vote. received the pay raise that we got this The point I am trying to raise with year? the gentleman, however, is the fact that Mr. GROSS. No, that is not my un- we have established a salary procedure derstanding. Certainly. I would have for the top-pay executives in the Gov- liked to have seen a vote on It, and tried ernment, for the judiciary, and for the in every possible way to get it. The re- legislative, and what the gentleman's sponsibility of Members of the House, amendment would now do would be to set the presumed responsibility, dictated a double standard. We would have a dif- that there be a vote on that pay in- ferent approach, perhaps less advan- crease. But there was no vote, as the tageous for the general employees of the gentleman knows. Government than that which we have Mr WILLIAM D. FORD. Then do I provided for ourselves, and this does not clearly interpret your position as being seem to me to be consistent with fair that yy do to make aitEless better than other employees in the Fed- likely likely that there will be an annual in- eral Government. crease in pay comparable or commensu- Mr. GROSS. With the influential help rate with increases in the cost of living of the gentleman from Michigan-and e in the fl uenc and other factors, that would be the case he can be a very helpful in under the bill offered by the gentleman committee-I will be glad to offer legis- from Arizona (Mr. UDALL). lation in the committee to provide for a Mr. GROSS. I cannot say what posi- mandatory vote on any further increases tion the House will take. I doubt very in pay for the executive, legislative or much that had House Members voted judicial branches of Government. on a rollcall vote they would have passed Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I will give the congressional pay increase earlier that my sympathetic consideration. this year. That is my personal opinion. Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Then I the gentleman yield? gather that you do believe there is at Mr. GROSS. I am glad to yield to the least a strong possibility that Federal gentleman from North Carolina. employees chances of an annual raise Mr. HENDERSON. I wish to commend would be t is le pat in Jeopardy ex- the gentleman for presenting to the amendment pr. of the Udall ll a greater bill - House a most important amendment to tent than the provision minindd, I U gentle; this legislation. The provision of the bill and with he that a m, ask the gouse that your amendment seeks to amend is man if he con believes one that gives most of us great could if good bill co that nsciencees nce pen this treated s the House s a salary ry trouble. That is the question whether or comless not the pay raises are going to be automa- genero the Federal Government tic unless Congress vetoes the recommen- selves? usl y than we have treated d t our- - dation of the Salary Commission, or whether Congress is going to face up to Mr. GROSS. I do not know what the what many of us think is our responsi-a House would do. I should like to see vote bility and affirmatively vote for the raises testOil I wantSan a Y see-and-nay vote as recommended by a commission. That w fray increases and all provides, That 1e is what the gentleman's amendment does. hut my amendment oes, that the It affords us an opportunity to go on Increase be compelled vote on pay- record at this point that if we want to in use . to increase the salaries of the employees en- het me say the the g18 entleman hence, as the Commission finds they are en-lookin this g dean the road are told, will , titled to be increased, we would then this legislation, we are talus w very vote to do that. I commend the gentle- like $2.5 milfi cost breasem, which exclusive is of the semi- man for this opportunity to vote on that nliltary pay inc reah issue automatic. being based upon the passage Mr, GROSS. I thank the gentleman of pay-increase legislation for other Fed- from North Carolina for his concurrence ligation era) to ili employees. e. citizens The of House this has the ob country-. in and help with this amendment. . HND~OuN. Mr. Chairman, will the taxpayers of this country, to vote on the all pay-increase legislation. The CHAIRMAN- The time of the gen- from GROSS. I yield to the gentleman tleman from Iowa has expired. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 14, 1969 V CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE Mr. HENDERSON. I urge Members of the House to give very serious considera- tion to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa. If the amendment is adopted, I am sure passage of the bill, at least by the House, will be assured. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman but I hope it will not assure passage of the bill for many other of its provisions are totally unacceptable. Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. MAcGREGOR. I rise to commend the gentleman from Iowa. His amend- ment obviously has great merit, and I would be pleased to support it. I should like to say to the gentleman who ques- tioned the gentleman from Iowa a moment ago about the double standard that obviously, if the House were to adopt this amendment now offered by the gen- tleman from Iowa on this legislation, we would subsequently adopt the same amendment with respect to a Commis- sion's recommendations for congres- sional, legislative, executive or judicial pay raises. Mr. GROSS. The gentleman is exactly right. If we put it in this bill, as we should, then we certainly ought to put it on the other legislation. I will offer legislation to that end. Mr. MACGREGOR. I would be pleased to support the gentleman in that legisla- tion. I join with him. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. I was pleased to read in the hearings on this legislation the statement of Mr. UDALL in connection with providing for affirmative congressional action on pay .increases when he said: This would insure that there would be an actual vote on these new pay schedules de- veloped through the machinery I am talking about. However, the language of the bill, H.R. 13000, does not conform to his state- ment. It occurs to me that if we are going to enact permanent law on this subject, we should remove any question as to whether the Congress has acted affirm- atively with respect to pay increases for Federal employees. To do otherwise, as provided for in the present language of the bill, merely leaves us in a position of having to take. the blame for any action of the Salary Commission without an opportunity to exercise any affirmative action with respect to its recommenda- tions. Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of the amendment. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I told the gentleman from Iowa frankly and I told the mem- bers of the Rules Committee that I had no really strong feelings on the amend- ment. I am inclined to oppose it. I do not think we should adopt the amendment, but I do not think it would destroy what we are trying to do. But, Mr. Chairman, let us make very clear what is involved before we vote on it. We are trying to set up a semiauto- matic procedure in which Congress does not have to hassle every year about pay raises. We are not giving up the policy- making. The Congress sets the policy in this bill. The bill tells a group of mechan- ics and bookkeepers every January to go out and check comparability of wages and bring in a proposal, which is then laid before the Congress, and it lays there for 30 days, and, if we do not veto it, it takes effect. What happens is that every year in January or February we will have a chance to vote and say, "we love the Fed- eral employees." I cannot imagine one of these things being voted down when a bipartisan group of labor and manage- ment has studied and said these things are necessary. I cannot imagine Congress voting it down. So we will be simply going through an act every year to say we love the Federal employees. Now, as to the amendment-the main reason the labor unions are against it is that it brings in delays. The recommen- dation will be made in January or Feb- ruary, and if there is arbitration it lays there until March of each year, and if there is further delay, it will be May, and then it may be voted upon. So this will leave the budget and the pay situation in doubt between January 1 and May 1. For these reasons, I believe it would be unwise to adopt the amendment, but I did tell the gentleman from Iowa it was not vital. If the Congress wants to do this and waste the time each year confirming that our policy has been carried out, then let us do it, but we still have a chance to veto it. The mechanics of the bill permit Congress to take up the bill and vote against it, if Congress wishes. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment writes out the retroactivity provision. Mr. UDALL. Then this is an even stronger reason to oppose the amend- ment, and the employee unions would be even more bitterly opposed. I did not understand that feature. Mr. Chairman, the problem is the lag we have of 15 months. We are behind in comparability now. We have tried to shorten that time, and it will still be more than 5 months behind. Each January we will catch it up to the pre- vious August, but now the gentleman's amendment is going to make the lag even greater. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, is the gen- tleman saying we should tailor whether we vote on a bill, any bill, in accordance with whether the bankers' association, the bar association, or any other group wants us to vote? Is this the way the gentleman is suggesting the House should proceed on other legislation? Mr. UDALL. No. What I am saying is that we ought to vote on important things. There are $5 billion worth of Wage Board adjustments made each year. We do not fix these things, because we have set down the policy and we have told the group of technicians and book- keepers to check on the pay for a car- 119481 penter and find out the situation in the particular area and pay that, and we do not vote each year on that. Mr. GROSS. But we could participate in it if we wanted to do so. Mr. UDALL. Of course we could. I am simply suggesting it is not all that important to saddle Congress with taking one afternoon or one day each year to vote on, and we do have a chance to vote if some outrage has been perpetrated. Mr. GROSS. I have not reached the point where a $2.5 billion bill is inconse- quential from the standpoint of my vote. Mr. UDALL. Of course, we have not. But if the policy is fixed by the Congress, it can be carried out by the technicians. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, was not one of the major contentions of Post- master General Blount for postal reform through setting up a Corporation this argument, that without a rate board out- side Congress there is a time lag and a lack of control in wages in the postal system? Mr. UDALL. Indeed. One of the pur- poses of the Postal Corporation is to get our hands out of the pot, to let us stop stirring the stew, and to have wages fixed in a different method than by having Congress fix them. Mr. WHITE. So by the committee amendment we still have oversight over the wages, yet the Rate Commission speeds up and streamlines ? the process? Mr. UDALL. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Iowa (Mr. GROSS). The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. GROSS) there were-ayes 49, noes 45. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. GROSS and Mr. UDALL. The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 65, noes 51. So the amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SCOTT Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. SCOTT: On page 24, line 12, strike out "adjusted" and insert in lieu thereof "reviewed"; and On page 28, lines 14 and 15, strike out "except as provided in subsection (e) and subsection (g) of this section,"; and On page 29, beginning with line 17, strike out all of line 17 and all that follows down through the end of line 19 on page 35 and redesignate the succeeding subsections ac- cordingly; and Delete each reference to the Federal Em- ployee Salary Board of Arbitration and mem- bers of such Board in the remaining text of the bill. (Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I did not anticipate the action of the Committee just taken in'adopting the amendment Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 119152 proposed by th, Mr. (-!ROSS). : t amendment, big. or a moment :,iferea in view jnittee in adopo :rent. On comp:, isients, howeve! worthwhile for -.!der and adopt Eac;entially. that the Comm only and that I will have to be The Gross am, Committee woe- The amendme- ever, would plan in an advisory arbitration boa sion is going t the Congress w mittee has jus` purpose in ha Lion. A Board any member c can appeal if decision render soon is someth in view of the amendment. it seems to i a number of q tion of this let t First. Mr. ourselves do u , the Congress and the apprc want a comm! seems reasona processes with gress and the able that whet budget to the salary adjusts ployees to is year. Mr. Chairm ask ourselves employee shoe. to a commiss: his salary or gressman as i What will c their represerT Will we say. - ! mission"? Wi Commissioner him in the s other constittu sider pay adi Mr. Chairrr:i the bill we c.. the Commissi days after sr.- If, ultimate] does not bee that. it does b, the other bo(, the two bodir amendment take two bite amendment Commission ., how our Coln inployee wh, Congress will saa?ies of G ,- _Mr. LATT_'- a ieman yi--. Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE October 14, 1969 gentleman from Iowa deed I supported his thereafter considered tether mine should be the action of the Com- ng the Gross amend- ison of the two amend- it is still considered he Committee to Con- ies amendment. tat it does is it provides soon shall be advisory report which it makes ted upon by the House. dment adopted by the require a rollcail vote. now before you, how- the Salary Commission e. It also eliminates the . if the Salary Commis- %e advisory only and if have to act, as the Com- ;aid it should. I see no ig a board of arbitra- f Arbitration to which the Salary Commission is dissatisfied with the 1 by the Salary Commis- that is not necessary adoption of the Gross we should ask ourselves stions in the considera- .ation. airman, we should ask want the President and control the budgetary iation process, or do we on to determine this. It e to me to retain these the control of the Con- esident. It seems reason- he President submits his )ngress it should Include nts for Government em- nade during the fiscal Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman some of the things or undoes some of from Ohio. the things that were covered in the Gross (Mr. LATTA asked and was given per- amendment and as a result thereof it mission to revise and extend his re- is my opinion that we would have a con- marks.) fused hodgepodge if both were approved. Mr. LATTA. As I understand the gen- Mr. Chairman, I am really appalled tleman's amendment, he proposes to give that a distinguished Member who rep- the Commission only review powers. Is resents as many Federal employees as that correct? does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mr. SCOTTY. I would knock out the SCOTT) would offer this amendment, be- Commission being able to determine the cause it guts the entire work of the com- salary of a Government employee. My mittee in salary fixing and the entirely amendment would change the word "ad- new system of fixing pay which this bill jested" on page 24 to "review." In other sets up and establishes would be ruined, words. it would not adjust the salaries. vetoed and rendered totally ineffective. The Commission would review the sal- Mr. Chairman, all this bill provides aries and make its recommendation to for is salary fixing machinery and pro- the Congress. vides for study machinery. We have had If the Gross amendment does become study machinery since 1962 and under law it would take away a lot of the that system the Federal employees got thrust of my amendment. I think, how- further and further and further behind ever, the two are consistent. My amend- in Virginia until in 1967 we passed an ment would abolish the Arbitration act that set up some timetables and com- Board. The Arbitration Board is a re- parability guidelines that brought Fed- view board that is set up in the bill. eral employees up to full comparability. First, the commission determines the if you want to ruin the postal and salary and this would be a recommends- classified employees and put us right Lion only. Then we would have the Board back in the committee and begin all over of Review. The congress under my again and knock out the Federal salary amendment would do that rather than fixing, just approve this amendment, be- a Board of Arbitration. I see no need for cause this is what it does. a Board of Arbitration in view of the If there is any Federal employee or adoption of the Gross amendment, or if any Federal employee organization that this amendment is adopted. MY amend- is in favor of this kind of amendment I anent would remove the Board of Arbi- cannot imagine who it would be. tration but not the Salary Commission. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the de- In other words, we have two separate feat of the amendment offered by the instrumentalities contained in this bill. gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) . Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, if the gen- Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the tleman will yield further, I agree with gentleman yield? what the gentleman is attempting to do. Mr. UDALL. I will yield briefly to the I do not think that as Members of Con- gentleman from Virginia. press we ought to let any board or any Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, is the commission do the job that we are sent gentleman saying, when he talks about here to do. I opposed the Salary Com- the amendment gutting the bill, and as M mission created to set salaries for em- being against the interests of the Federal tiers of Congress. In my opinion this bill workers, is the gentleman asking this attempts to do the same thing for postal body to believe that the Bureau of the and other Federal employees. I think it Budget, that the Post Office Department, is proper and fitting that we increase that the Civil Service Commission, that the salaries of postal and Federal em- the Department of the Army, all of whom it seems to me we might whom the Government I turn. Should he turn i for the adjustment of )uld he contact his Con- has in the past? say to the employees or tive if they come to us? ilk it over with the Com- ve be bound by what the eports, or will we treat ie manner as all of our its at the time we con- ,ments? i, if we look at page 32 of see that the findings of go into effect within 30 nission to the Congress. the Gross amendment le the law-and I hope )me law-but in the event or a conference between strikes it out, I feel this 11 be good insurance to at similar proposals. My ould make the Salary ,visors only. I think we ern for the Government we say to him that the stain jurisdiction over the artunent employees. Mr, Chairman, will the I? gate xaa c uava c aaa~ caws cu ua Luc w a dele- a legislative body-we should not the individual employee than this body it. is? I do not believe that these agencies The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- are more interested in the welfare of tleman from Virginia has expired. Government employees than their elected iBy unanimous consent, Mr. SCOTT representatives. was allowed to proceed for 1 additional Mr. UDALL. No; I am not saying that. minute.) What I am saying is that the Federal Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank employee was 2 years, 3 years, or even 4 the gentleman for his comments. Let me years behind in comparability. I have say that I believe this Congress and this heard the gentleman say how terrible House over the years has abdicated a this is. The reason that situation existed large measure of its responsibility. I was because we had no machinery for think it is time that we reversed that regular, annual, periodic adjustments in trend and did the things that the peo- pay We had some study machinery that ple have sent us here to the Congress the gentleman says we should have now. to do. But this bill would establish the auto- Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to matic machinery whereby it will make strike the requisite number of words. sure that we can carry out the policies (Mr. UDALL asked and was given per- that we determine we believe in. If we mission to revise and extend his were to continue with the study machin- remarks.) ery as suggested, and this study were Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in completed next January, the way this opposition to the amendment. I make Congress works there would not be a two points against the amendment. As a raise until many months later. It would matter of fact I should have raised a be maybe August or September before point of order to the amendment al- we would get around to coming up with though I did not, because it really does a pay bill based upon that study so again Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 October 14, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 9483 that would be a year or two behind. Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I make the That is what this bill is trying to avoid. gentleman yield? point of order that the amendment is Mr. SCOTT. You are saying that the Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman not germane to the bill that is being con- Commission would be more effective than from New York (Mr. DuLsxl). sidered. this Congress, and I would submit that Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman that is quite an indictment of the Con- the gentleman for yielding. from Missouri (Mr. HUNGATE) desire to gress, and the representatives of the em- Mr. Chairman, I know of the great be heard on the point of order? ployees and the people, contributions that the gentleman from Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I can Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, will the Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) has made to the hardly imagine anything more germane gentleman yield? Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- than this amendment relating to Fed- Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman ice,. but I am sure he is mistaken in pre- eral employees pay in this bill having from New York. senting this amendment, to do with the payment of Federal Mr. BIAGGI, Mr. Chairman, I thank As the chairman of the full committee, employees. the gentleman for yielding. I have sat on many of the hearings, and The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is ready Mr. Chairman, I do not rise too often have listened attentively to the proceed- to rule. The Chair would like to point to speak on the floor of this House. As ings. I have always thought that we out that the amendment offered by the the Members know, I am a relatively should bridge the gap of comparability gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) new Member. However, I must rise on a within the period of about 3 or 4'months. that was adopted, goes to the point of matter so vital and on which I am in- I think it was explained by our able clerk hire in the House and also in the timately acquainted. subcommittee chairman, the gentleman Senate. The bill having been opened up Before I arrived here as a Member of from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) when he said on that subject by the adoption of that the Congress I served for many, many that if we delete that one provision from amendment, and since the amendment years as a policeman, but prior to that I the bill and abolish the Arbitration offered by the gentleman from Missouri served as a postal employee for some 5 Board, we will be more than 15 months (Mr. HUNGATE) also addresses itself to years. I personally regard my departure away from comparability. So I rise in the matter of clerk hire in the House, from that postal system as an escape. I opposition to the amendment. the Chair holds that the amendment is regard it in this fashion facetiously, but The CHAIRMAN. The question is on germane and therefore overrules the the fact of the matter is that it is a the amendment offered by the gentle- point of order. proper characterization of my departure; man from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT). (Mr. HUNGATE asked and was given it was an escape from a medieval system The question was taken; and on a di- permission to revise and extend his and a medieval approach to salaries. vision (demanded by Mr. SCOTT), there remarks.) Be assured the Commission, with ex- were-ayes 27, noes 59. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I urge ecutive powers, is necessary. The ad- So the amendment was rejected. - support - of this amendment. It is de- visory nature of this amendment would AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUNGATE signed to prohibit campaigning by con- emasculate the very purpose of such ma- Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I offer gressional staff paid from a clerk-hire chinery which is so necessary to over- an amendment. allowance for candidates in congres- come omissions over the decades where The Clerk read as follows: sional elections held out of the State of Congress has not done its job, and that Amendment offered by Mr. HUNGATE: On their employer's district. The amend- is the fact of the matter. Congress has page 46, insert a new section 9 immediately ment will accomplish this goal by penal- failed to do it job and discharge its following line 13, and renumber section 9 izing those staffers in violation of the moral responsibilities to the Federal as section 10, as follows: provision 2 weeks of pay, and in those employees, and also to the neglected em- "SEC. 9. (a) Any person paid from a clerk instances where a staffer fails to report ployeees of the postal system of our Na- hire allowance of the House of Representa- his activities, 6 months of pay. tion. That is why we find ourselves con- tlves who travels to a Congressional dis- Mr. Chairman, as President Nixon told fronted with the most abysmal postal trict in a State other than the State of the those of us who were here yesterday. service and where we find ourselves member by which he is employed for the purpose of influencing in any manner the The spirit of party grows more evident confronted with a situation where postal outcome of a congressional election, includ- weekly in the National Capital ... the call employees are required in some areas of ing any future Congressional election, shall to partisan combat has grown more com- the country to engage in other endeavors be paid for only one-half the pay period pelling. in order to maintain a living wage.. during which the clerk of the House is in- I have in my hand the following letter Gentlemen, we have seen the unrest, formed of the activities as provided in sub- we dated August 27, 1969, which reads as have seen the activities on the part section (b) of this section. of the postal employees of this Nation, a(b) Any person paid from a clerk hire follows: allowance who engages in activities described DEAR BULL ELEPHANT- and they are responsible people, they are in subsection (a.-) of this section shall report dedicated, they are loyal Americans, but such activities to the Clerk of the House no I presume that refers to those in the they are charged with the responsibility later than five days following the commence- cow districts- of fiscally maintaining our postal service. ment of such activities. Our Congressional Campaign Committee We only have to look across the Atlantic ?(c) If full pay for the pay period during chairman, Bob Wilson, has asked me to head Ocean to Italy, where not too many which the Clerk of the House is informed up our reactivated R.S.V.P. program (Repub- months ago we found a postal strike in of activities prohibited by subsection (a) licans Speak on Vital Problems), concentrat- mont lice that tied up that nation strike in of this section has been received by a per- ing our efforts in Democratic-held districts. son reporting they obtained their benefits. Should we of ths s cti ns, rtheirClerk ofb tile House Last year it was constructive Republi- in the Congress be responsible for driv- shall withhold one-half of said person's pay can alternative programs-I am not sure ing the postal employees of America to for the following pay period. what we should make of that. Contin- that same end in order to ultimately "(d) Any person paid from a clerk hire uing: obtain the required benefits? allowance failing to comply with subsection We plan to send out three-member teams You and I know that if we permit these (b) of this section shall forfeit all right to of Republican Congressmen into these dis- inadequaCies to approach crisis propor- any pay from the House of Representatives tricts on successive week ends between Sep- inad i this optry then si pre re- for a period of six months. tember 26 and November 8. "(e) It shall be the duty of the employing To make these visits a success, we need a sponsible for any similar job action. It is member of a person paid from a clerk hire number of topflight advance men to precede irresponsibility on our part to drive the allowance who engages in activities prohib- the panels into these districts, conferring employees to that point. Let us discharge iced by subsecti(a) of this section to with local party leaders, setting up the our duties and our responsibilities here report the activity to the Clerk of the House agenda for the visits, arranging for press - today by defeating this amendment- if sthe ubsection activity is not ep trted as required by conferences, at cetera. And that's where you and fulfill our moral commitment to the come in. postal as well as Federal employees. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes If you can arrange it with your boss to get The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. HuN- away from your office for a total of about 8-10 tleman from Arizona has expired. GATE) in support of his amendment. days during this period (the first 4-5 days (By unanimous consent, Mr. UDALL was Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman- coming several weeks in advance of the allowed to proceed for 1 additional min- The CHAIRMAN. For what panel's departure and the second 3-4 days ute.) purpose Immediately preceding the group's depar- does the gentleman from Virginia rise? ture), we can use you. Ideally, we're looking Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070013-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE- October 14, 1969 i