SENATORS VOTE U.S. PAY RISE

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

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were out-of-date when finally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