EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL SALARIES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500130003-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2001
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: February 28, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500130op~-4
I
Calendar No. 678
03D CONGRESS
2c1 Session
q
REPORT
No. 93-701
EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL SALARIES
FEBRUARY 28, 1974.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. MCGEE, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. Res. 293]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, having considered
the President's recommendations on Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial salaries, reports an original resolution (S. Res. 293) to dis-
approve Congressional salary increases recommended by the President,
and recommends that the resolution do pass..
PURPOSE
The purpose of this original Resolution is to modify the President's
recommendations on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Judicial, salary ad7
increases
justmonts by deleting the provision for three 7% p. P y
for Members of Congress to become effective in 1974, 1975, and 1976.
Under this Resolution, all provisions of the President's proposal, as
spelled out in the table submitted as. part of his recommendations,
would become effective except that Members of Congress would
receive no pay increases.
Following is a chart detailing the President's recommendations as
modified by the .Committee's deletion.. Senators, Members of the
House of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner from
Puerto Rico: in 1.974 would, under the provisions of this Resolution,
continue to receive their. current salary-of $42,500.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : C1t4-RDP75B00380R000500130003-4
PRESIDENT'S PAY RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED
1974
1975
1976
For offices and positions under the Executive Schedule in subchapter II of ch. 53 of
title 5, United States Code, as follows:
Positions at level II-------------- -------------------- -------------------
Positio
tl
s
iII
$60,000
$64,500
$64
500
n
a
eve
______________-_--___-_____--____-_____--___-____---
Positi
tl
1
45,700
49,100
,
52
800
ons a
eve
III------------------------------ _------------------------
Positi
t l
l
43,000
46,200
,
49
700
ons a
eve
IV------------ ______ ___--------------------------------
Positi
t
' V
40,900
43,900
,
47
200
ons a
eve
________________________________________________________
F
38,700
41
600
,
44
700
or Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Ricn_.-----------------------------------------
F
42
500
,
42
500
,
42
500
or other offices and positions in the legislative branch as follows:
Comptroller General of the United States-----------------------------------
De
t
C
t
,
45, 700
,
49, 100
,
52
800
pu
y
omp
roller General of the United States_________-----------------
Th
P
bl
43,000
46
200
,
49
700
e
u
ic Printer, Librarian of Congress, Architect of the Capitol, and General
Counsel of the General Accounting Office_____
Th
D
------------------------------
40, 900
,
43
900
,
47
200
e
eputy Public Printer, Deputy Librarian of ongress, and Assistant Architect
c
of the Capital------------------------------- ,___,_----------------------
F
J
38
700
,
41
600
,
44
70D
or
ustices, judges, and other personnel in the judicial branch, as follows:
Chief Justice of the United States___________________________________________
A
i
t
J
i
,
62,500
,
67, 200
,
67
200
ssoc
a
e
ust
ces of the Supreme Court____________________________
J
d
60, 000
64
500
,
64
500
u
ges, circuit court of appeals; judges, Court of Claims; judges, Court of Military
Appeals; judges, Court of Customs and Patert Appeals -_____---_______-__-
J
d
45,700
,
49
100
,
52
800
u
ges, district courts; judges, Customs Court; judges, Tax Court of the United States;
Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts -_ _ _ _ .
D
t
Di
43, 43,000
,
46
200
,
49
70D
epu
y
rector of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; Commissioners, Court
of Claims; referees In bankruptcy, fulltime(maximum) ------------------------
Ref
i
b
k
38,700
,
41,600
,
44
700
erees
n
an
ruptcy part time (maximum)------------- -------------------------
19, 400
20, 800
,
22, 40D
The President's recommendation, which would adjust the pay of
almost 15,000 top-,echelon personnel, comes to the Congress under the
provisions of the Federal Salaiy Act of 1967 which establishes a Com-
mission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial salaries. The function
of the Salary Commission, which serves for one fiscal year, is to study
and review the compensation of the top officials of the executive
branch under the Executive Schedule, Members of Congress, and
justices, judges, and other personnel of the judicial branch.
Under the Act, the Commission reports its pay recommendations to,
the President no later than the January 1 following the close of the
fiscal year in which the Commission makes its quadrennial pay review.
The President then includes in his next budget message to the Congress
his recommendations on the exact rates of pay which he deems advis-
able for the offices and positions with which the Salary Commission is
concerned. The President's recommendations become effective at the
beginning or.' the first pay period following the transmittal of his recom-
mendations. unless Congress enacts a conflicting law or specifically
disapproves all or to the extent that it disapproves a part of his
recommendations.
This Resolution would have the effect of disapproving the three
annual pay increases for Members of Congress effective in 1974, 1975,
and 1976.
President Johnson appointed the first Salary Commission in July,
1968, and the Commission reports its recommendations to the Presi-
dent in December of that year. The President's pay recommendations,
made as a part of his January 1969 budget message, became effective,
in accordance with the provisions of law, in March 1969.
The most recent Commission was appointed by President Nixon
in December, 1972, too late for the Commission to conclude a review
and formulate a report to the President by January 1, 1973. The
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0' : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500130003-4
Commission's report went to the President June 30, 1973, and the
President's recommendations were sent to Congress February 4, 1974.
This recommendation marks the first opportunity for a pay increase
for the officials involved in five years-since March 1969. The Corn-
mission recommended a 25 percent increase this year, as stated in its
report, "to restore the purchasing power" of officials in the Executive
Salary Schedule and positions at the same pay level in the Legislative
and Judicial Branches. Smaller percentage increases were recom-
mended for Cabinet Secretaries and Justices of the Supreme Court.
The Commission considered its 25 percent proposal to be moderate.
The Commission wrote:
In view of the obvious need for moderation implicit in
the. present economic environment, the Commission do-
cided to limit its salary-increase recommendation to the
rise in the cost of living. It appeared to us that simple equity
required the restoration of the lost purchasing power of these
public servants,
The President has assessed the Commission's report and has sub-
stantially scaled down its proposed increase. Instead of a 25 percent
increase in 1974, the President has recommended three successive 7%,
percent increases to become effective in 1974, 1975, and 1976, except
that Cabinet Secretaries and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices.
of the Supreme Court would receive one 7% percent increase effective
in January, 1975. This Resolution deletes all increases recommended
for Members of Congress.
STATEMENT
Under the 1962 Federal Salary Reform Act, statutory employees
generally receive pay adjustments every year-in October. This is by
far the largest group, some 1.3 million of them, operating on an annual
payroll of $17 billion. The increases they receive are only indirectly
related to the cost of living; they are based upon private enterprise
salary rates for comparable positions in private industry nationally
derived from annual. Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys. This pro-
cedure puts into effect the "equal pay for equal work" comparability
principle.
Under the 1967 Salary Act, the pay of top officials in the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches is adjusted every four years on the
basis of recommendations made by the quadrennial Salary Commis-
sion: This period was temporarily extended to five years as explained
above.
Since the last pay adjustment in March, 1969:
The Consumer Price Index has increased by 29.3 percent.
Average hourly earnings in the non-farm economy are up
29.5 percent.
The pay of executives in private enterprise has increased 25-30
percent.
State Governors' salaries are up 26.5 percent.
Salaries of statutory (General Schedule) employees have in-
creased by 42.3 percent.
The static pay of officials in the Executive Salary Schedule and
Justices and judges of the Federal judiciary in a period of explosive
inflation cuts into the basic ability of the two branches to carry out
their missions effectively.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : C,A-RDP75B00380R000500130003-4
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Employees in the upper levels of the General Schedule an( senior
employees in other pay systems are not being paid salaries comparable
with those outside Government because the salary rate of a subcabinet
official in. level V of the Executive Salary Schedule has placed a $3610001
ceiling on General Schedule pay. This ceiling has existed since January,
1971. As a consequence of this compression:
All level V. all GS-18, GS-17, 80 percent of GS--16, and four
percent of GS-15 are receiving single salary rate of $36,000.
05--18, which has not been increased since January 1971, is
now $7,926 below "comparability".
If there is no increase before 1977 (the next adjustment date
under the quadrennial procedure), compression will extend down
to G4-14; GS-18 will be nearly $15,000 below "comparability".
The salary distinctions among employees, in_GS--1:5 , 16, 17, and 18
have become virtually meaningless, and this condition will progres-
sively penetrate into lower pay grades unless the ceiling salary is
increased. In Cabinet and subcabinet levels I through 1V, the respon-
sibilities of the incumbents equal or exceed those of people with similar
duties in the private sector, but the compensation of the Government
officials is substantially lower. For example, the Chief Forester of the
United States, in level V which pays $36,000, will be responsible for
expenditures in fiscal year 1975 of almost three quarters of a billion
dollars. The top executives of private companies of similar size earn
$150,000 or more, plus bonuses and other benefits.
The Government risks losing many of its best career executives..
By remaining in the Government, top GS employees are foregoing
cost-of-living annuity increases, which raised annuities more than 10
percent last year. Unless their compensation is increased, many top
career employees can substantially better themselves financially by.
retiring and accepting non-Government employment.
The turnover of employees in the top three grades has increased
since 1970. 'T'his is attributable, in part, to salary compression coupled,
with cost-of-living increases in retirement annuities. Between 1970,
and 1972, their retirements increased from 264 to 380, a rise of about
44 percent. Further, during the first 8 months of 1973, another 379
retired. If retirements during the last 4 months of the year were at
the same rate as during the first 8 months, it is estimated that a total
of about 570 supergr?ades retired during 1973, or more than twice the
number of 1970.
Unless tl e compression logjam is broken, increasing numbers of
career officials will be tempted to retire on upwardly adjusted annuities
rather than wait four more years for a pay increase.
The case for a pay increase is equally compelling in the judicial
branch. Compression exists between the pay of judge, and their top
staff; and judges' pay, unchanged in five years, is clearly not in accord
with a judge's heavy responsibilities.
The past few years have seen significant changes in the Federal
judiciary. While cases have become more complex and more numerous,
Federal judges, through the use of individualpcalendars, computerize-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
tion, and new management procedures, are disposing of cases more
rapidly than ever before. Last year District Courts disposed of more
cases than were filed, and the per-judge disposition of cases improved
by 30 percent.
At the same time, the compensation of lawyers has increased rapidly.
It is not unusual for a good trial lawyer to earn in excess of $100,000 a
year, perhaps a lawyer pleading a case before a Circuit Court judge
making $42,500 a year. Since 1967 when one Federal judge resigned,
four additional judges, all in 1973, have announced their resignations.
In the 15 years prior to 1967, only three Federal judges resigned. The
Committee is advised that other judges, considering resignation, are
waiting to see how the Congress disposes of the President's current
pay recommendations. Recently, 12 different lawyers turned down
feelers for a Federal judgeship.
Because of the importance of this issue to the Federal judiciary, the
Committee solicited the views of the Chief Justice of the United
States on the President's recommendations to the Congress. The
Chief Justice's letter of response follows:
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
CHAMBERS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., February 25, 1974.
Hon. GALE S. MCGEE,
Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C..
DEAR SENATOR MCGEE: I have your letter of February 19 advising
that, as Chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee,
you intend to oppose any action disapproving the President's proposal.
on salary increases for the Federal Judiciary and other categories and
asking my views on this matter.
Although the recommendation departs substantially from the rec-
ommendations of the Commission on Executive, Legislative and
Judicial salaries, my colleagues on this Court and I agree with your
position that the President's proposal should be accepted. One of its
important consequences will be to encourage judges in the District
Courts and Courts of Appeals to remain in service even though the
pending proposal is patently discriminatory against those judges when
compared with approximately one-third increase in government sal-
aries generally since the 1969 salary adjustment for Federal judges.
Adoption of the President's proposal may help stem the resignations
of District Judges in particular. We have had more resignations in
the past year, based on economic grounds, than at any time in the
past 100 years. I am also reliably informed that many qualified
lawyers have declined appointment because the pay of a District
Judge now is only double the starting salary of law graduates hired
by large law ollices. It is surely not in the public interest to have some
of the best qualified lawyers resigning or declining appointment be-
cause of inequitable and inadequate compensation.
I feel bound to comment also on the increase provided for the Asso-
ciate Justices of the Supreme Court which is limited to $4,500 and is
deferred nearly one year. This increase of $4,500 is less than one-half
the increase provided over three years for Courts of Appeals judges
and Members of Congress.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
16
Notwithstanding that the pending proposal fails to take into ac-
-count the severe inflation of recent years and fails to give due weight
to the studies and. recommendations of the Commission, its adoption
will serve as an important interim function until appropriate legisla-
tion can be enacted.
Cordially,
WARREN E. BURGER.
Retired Associate justice of the supreme Court Tom C. Clark also
wrote to the Committee, discussing recent cases of judges who have
chosen to step down from the bench for financial reasons.
His letter states: "In my judgment, we will lose a good percentage
of our Judges unless some steps are taken to correct the situation by
meaningful salary increases. I concur wholeheartedly in the letter that
the Chief Justice is sending you today regarding this matter and write
only to underscore the urgency of the problem."
Since a Federal judge must be a man of stature and probity, qualified
professionally and temperamentally to serve in a position which
ensures justice for all citizens, the Committee believes that his com-
pensation ought to match the qualifications he brings to the discharge
of his heavy responsibilities.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
`there have been six Congressional pay increases since 1874-or
an average of one increase every 1.7 years. Members now receive
the same. compensation as an incumbent of a level II official of the
President's cabinet.
In recognition of prevailing economic conditions and as a reminder
that some sacrifices should be made in inflationary times, the Com-
mittee believes that Members should forego the increases recom-
mnended.
The pay increases recommended by the Committee would entail
an increased cost to the Government of $6.1 million in fiscal year 1974,
$31.9 million in fiscal year 1975, and $54 million in fiscal year 1976.
Generally, the salaries of Senate staff aides are subject to the
orders of the President Pro Tempore issued pursuant to Presidential
executive orders. Under Public Law '91-656, Senate staff salaries are
now subject to the October 4, 1973 pay order of the Senate President
Pro Tempore.
Under that order the salaries of Senate staff aides-other than 13
excepted positions--cannot be increased until either (1.) a new Presi-
dent Pro Tempore order is issued pursuant to a Presidential executive
branch pay increase expected in October 1974; or (2) the Executive
Level V pay is increased to $39,000 or more (expected on January 1,
1975, under the President's pay recommendations now before the
Congress). ]Under Public Law 91-656, the President Pro Tempore
cannot issue any interim orders changing his order of October 4, 1973.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07' CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
Therefore, the salaries of Senate staff aides cannot be increased
above the $35,910 top level until one of the above two actions takes
place.
The Committee's first vote was on an amendment sponsored by
Senator Fong to a motion by Senator Jennings Randolph, to dis-
approve the Presidential recommendations entirely. Fong's first
amendment proposed that Senators and Congressmen forego raises
until 1975. The Committee vote on the amendment was: Yea-
Senators Moss, Fong, Stevens and McGee. Nay-Senators Randolph,
Burdick, Hollings, Bellmon and Dole.
The second amendment, also by Senator Fong, proposed to delay
all scheduled executive, legislative and judicial salary increases until
1975. The Committee vote on the amendment was: Yea-Senators
Moss, Fong, Stevens and McGee. Nay-Senators Randolph, Burdick,
Hollings, Bellmon and Dole.
The vote on the successful Fong amendment, disapproving only
Congressional pay raises for the full term of the recommendation
was: Yea-Senators Moss, Hollings, Fong, Stevens, Bellmon and
McGee. Nay-Senators Randolph, Burdick, and Dole.
The final vote to report the resolution was: Yea-Senators Moss,
Hollings, Fong, Stevens, Bellmon and McGee. Nay-Senators Ran-
dolph, Burdick and Dole.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
To insure that my votes on Senate Resolution 293 are clearly
understood, I reiterate my earnest opposition to pay increases for
Members of Congress, Judges, and top officials of the Executive
Branch, including the military, as proposed in the President's budget.
It is my conviction that this is not a time for Members of Congress
and officials of Government who have leadership responsibilities of
our Nation to receive pay raises. Foremost among this country's
problems is the state of our economy. Citizens generally are con-
fronted with an unusually acute inflationary spiral and in most in-
stances they have not been able to cope with the skyrocketing in-
creases in the cost of living. Until we reverse this situation, the salaries
encompassed in the President's proposal should remain at present
levels.
One approach to the issue of salary increases would be to combine a
resolution of disapproval with legislation which would enable the
Congress to consider this issue in 1.975. This could be done through a
simple amendment to The Federal Salary Act, P.L. 90-206, requiring
the President to resubmit next year his recommendations on any
part disapproved by the Congress and specifying that any recom-
mendations disapproved in a given year shall be reconsidered by the
Congress in the succeeding year. I suggested this approach but it
was evident from the discussion in our committee that there was
little sentiment for this course of action.
I then moved the adoption of S. Resolution 271 introduced by
Senator Church, with my cosponsorship, to disapprove the entire
salary proposal. My motion was subsequently amended and thus no
direct vote was taken on it.
Votes listed in this report reflect my opposition to salary increases
now.
I am in favor of disapproving Congressional pay raises. I am also
opposed to pay increases for all others in high level positions in.
Government which Senate Resolution would allow.
Raises at this time would have disastrous impact on the will of our
citizenry to sacrifice in this time of crisis. It is my considered judgment
that salary increases in 1.974 would cause a further erosion of the
people's confidence in our national legislative body. I do not advocate,
retreat. I plead for restraint.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. STEVENS
While,I feel that the issue which the Senate will face is embodied
in the resolution which seeks to totally disapprove the recommenda-
tions before us under the Salary Act of 1967, because of the action of
the Post Office and Civil Service: Committee, I will address here,
primarily the issue of the increase recommended for. Congress.
These recommendations are interdependent-to approve one portion
of them would create such an imbalance in the federal government that
even more disincentive would be built into the pay schedules. Further-
more, as I will develop more fully on the Floor of the Senate, the
compensation for members of Congress is more than salary, it is
compensation for the total expenses incurred by a member of Congress
which are not reimbursed. For instance, no per diem expense is
provided a member of Congress while he is on travel status, except
while on Committee business.
The action of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee with
regard to various resolutions disallowing President Nixon's pay pro-
posal should be applauded. The Committee's action is the responsible
way to deal with the subjects of executive and judicial salary in-
creases. In its action in these two areas, the Committee has agreed to
the very modest and belated pay increase as proposed by the President.
The Committee's action, once again, illustrates the leadership so
often exhibited in the past by its members.
It was in the spirit of cooperation, and because I agreed whole-
heartedly with two of the three provisions of the Committee's proposed
resolution that I voted for reporting out the resolution. I felt a deep
sense of responsibility not only to the past fine work of the Committee;
but to the whole concept of the Committee system to see that the
entire Senate could have the benefit of the Committee's preference
in this matter.
However, I do take vigorous exception to the portion of the resolu-
tion dealing with the proposed Congressional pay raise.
It has long been felt that a logical and fair procedure should be
developed to adjust the salaries of those individuals who govern the
wealthiest and strongest nation of the world. The result was the
Salary Act of 1967. This Act provides that compensation of the top
officials in the three branches of government is subject to adjustment
every fourth year. This period was temporarily extended from four to
five years by the action of the President last fall. This adjustment
would be arrived at by thorough study conducted by an impartial
commission appointed by the President, the President of the Senate,
Speaker of the House and the Chief Justice of the United States. The
first commission was chaired by Frederic R. Rappel, former Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the American Telephone and Telegraph
Company. That Commission's recommendation was given to then
President Lyndon Baines Johnson. As a result of its recommendations,
President Johnson in his 1969 "Salary Reform" message stated:
(11)
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : lC21A-RDP75BOO38OR000500130003-4
Congress, the Executive branch and the Federal judiciary
are the vital nerve centers of government. Whoever mans
them is involved in activities so momentous and far reaching
that they touch the lives of all. our citizens and indeed of
people the world over. Our national interest demands and
our national survival requires that America summon its
best men and women to assume the power of decision and
the res?oonsibilities of leadership for government in action.
Central to this concern is the matter of compensation at
top echelons of government. Today the salaries we pay our
top officials are clearly inadequate.
The President went on to point out his agreement with the Rappel
Commission report which recommended that "Congress pay should
be set at $50,000" per year. Adding that, "If I alone had the power to
put its recommendation into effect, I would do so." However, the
President recommended the lower figure of $42,500 because he was
informed by Congressional leaders that the lower figure was "more
likely to receive the necessary support" for passage through the legis-
lature. In o~~her words, the President bowed to the habitual practice
of Congress to put a salary increase for its "own numbers last in line."
The result is that members of Congress received a salary increase of
$7,500 less than what the President and the Commission comprised of
eminent Americans felt was fair, just and equitable. Today that figure
of $42,500 is $22,700 short of being fair, just and adequate, for if the
$50,000 salary recommended for members of Congress by the First
Commission on Executive Legislative and Judicial salaries five years
ago were to be increased to keep pace with the increased cost of living
since 1969, it would today be $65,200 or $22,700 more than is being
received right now. Even if the $42,500 salary actually put into effect
for members of Congress were to be increased to keep up with the
increase in. the cost of living since 1 969, the pay for the legislative
branch would be $55,400 or almost $12,000 more than it is today.
Expressed in another manner, in terms of 1969 dollars, the present
salary for members of Congress is only $32,600. The salary increase
the members of the legislative branch received five years ago has
shrunk by some $9,900. Thus, we are now in a position of catch-up in
terms of a fur, just and adequate salary for the members of a body
that is essentially the Board of Directors for the largest and most
prosperous and powerful government of the world. However, to quote
from the current report of the Commission on Executive, Legislative
and Judicial ,Salaries:
'Phis situation created by the necessity of salary catch-up
for our highest Government officials is not new. It has existed
throughout our history. From 1789 to 1954, when Congress
acted on the recommendations of the first Commission with
jurisdiction over judicial and congressional salaries, adjust-
ments in compensation of Members of Congress and the
Federal judges were made, on the average, once in every 20
years. Since 1954, this long period lag has been improved,
but until we have a Commission charged with the responsi-
bility fcr continuous review of the salaries of these officials,
or at least biennial Commissions as the Report proposes,
there will be a minimum four-year lag and, as in the present
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/01 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
instance, even this may be prolonged. The current situation
is aggravated by the severe inflationary pressures which have
occurred and the steady erosion of actual income which this.
has produced. The officials involved can never be made
whole; the losses they have incurred by virtue of having re-
ceived no increases whatever year after year during what-
ever period is involved-five years in. this instance-is lost
to them forever. And when salary adjustments are finally
considered, they are of such magnitude that to an uninformed
public they seem exorbitant, and to Members of the Congress
in the sensitive position of coming up for election, the situa-
tion seems ominous. But the history of our Country demon-
strates that reasoned and restrained action by the Congress
has never resulted in adverse consequences at the polls.
If the President's current recommendations go into effect, 542'
individuals will receive the Congressional salary increase from $42,500
to $45,700 (this includes the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico
and the delegates from Guam, the Virgin Islands and the District of
Columbia. It does not include the Speaker of the House, the repre-
sentative of the President pro tempore, the Majority and Minority
leaders of the Senate and House, since the pay of these six officers
is adjusted by statute.) The increase of salary of $3,200 for the law-
makers of our nation will cost $1,734,400 on an annual basis. This.
increase, and the $3,400 increase for January 1975, would cost a total
of $2,655,800 during fiscal year 1975. .This is less than 3iooo of one
percent of the President's fiscal year 1975 budget request.
There is great concern among many members of Congress today
that should we increase our salary the public's opinion will fall below
its current level. I feel the reverse is true. I cannot understand how
we can expect the public to have a high opinion of a legislative branch
when we don't have high enough opinion of ourselves and the job
that we do to provide a fair, just and adequate salary. I doubt that
there is a single member in the Senate who will disagree that we have
failed to provide for the proper staffing necessary for its to carry on
the business of the people. Even if we were to receive additional
numbers of staff, I don't know where we could put them as we failed
to adequately supply ourselves with the needed space in which to
carry on the business of governing this nation. A first step toward
re-establishing the high opinion that this legislative body deserves is
to admit that we are not providing adequate salary for those members
of the legislative branch who are not independently wealthy.
Members of Congress received their last pay raise in 1969 bringing
them to the $42,500 level. Since Feb. 1969 to January 1974, the
Consumer Price Index has increased 30.4 percent-this without an
additional pay increase.*
During the same period (Feb. 1969 to Jan. 1974) the salary increase
for federal government employees (GS grades) rose 36.5 percent.
However, during the period between 1969 and 1973 the average
hourly earnings in the private non-agricultural sector (which includes
union jobs) increased 32.2 percent-this while earnings for members
of Congress remained frozen at 1969 levels and the rate of inflation
edged up at increasing levels.
*Source-bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : 9 -RDP75B00380R000500130003-4
It is interesting to note the percentage increases in wages negotiated
by collective bargaining agreements for 1,000 workers or more during
the period of 1969-1973:
1969+8.2 percent
1979+11.9 percent
1971+11.6 percent
197:2-4--7.3 percent
1973+5.3 percent
This represents an increase in salaries for union employees of just
under 45 percent form 1969 to 1973--this while members of Congress
maintained their salaries at 1969 levels. It is also interesting to note
that as union salaries increased about 45 percent-part of this in-
? crease came during the period of economic stabilization-a time when
salaries were hoped to be closely constrained.
The rate of substantial salary increase was not limited to just those
who engaged in union jobs-indeed, the salaries of professional, ad-
ministrative and technical personnel also zoomed up during the 1969
to 1973 period---and this does not even include the salary increases for
executives of the nation's private corporations.
It is im73ortant to consider how the present economic conditions
affect the purchasing power of the dollar and how a 1969 salary struc-
ture competes with the cost of living in 1973.
The cost of living in 1973 increased 8.8 percent, and the projections
for 1974 are that it will again increase-by at least 8 percent to as
much as 10 percent. Members of Congress, however, find themselves
living on a salary structure geared to 1969-or a salary level geared to
an economy of nearly a half decade ago.
Consider the purchase power of the dollar. Measured in 1967
dollars, the purchasing power of the dollar last year was 72 cents
and some projections call for it to fall again this year. In other words,
members o-' Congress find themselves trying to continue to meet the
economic c.emands of 1974 with a reduced capability of nearly 25
percent.
In 1968 the Rappel Commission on. executive salaries recommended
that salaries for members of Congress should be increased to $50,000
to meet the then current economic situation-and that was five
years ago.
This indication of price increases and the rise in the cost of living
justifies a concomitant increase in salaries of members of Congress.
Further evidence of the logic of a reasonable increase in legislative
salaries may be found by referring to the salary increases which have
occurred on an annual basis in the private sector of the national
economy. 'rhe Bureau of Labor Statistics August 16, 1973 release
indicates that white collar occupations salary increases occurred at an
annual percentage rate as follows:
1969-70-----------------------------------------------------------
6.2
1970-71-----------------------------------------------------------
6.6
1971-72---------------------------------- -----------------------
5.9
1972-73-----------------------------------------------------------
5.4
.Professional, administrative, and technical support increases
occurred as follows:
1.969-70-----------------------------------------------------------
6.2
1970-71----------------------------------------------------------
6.7
1971-72----------------------------------------------------------
5.5
1972-73----------------------------------------------------------
5.4
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/GTd CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
The same release indicates that average salaries for selected white-
,collar occupations in private industry increased 5.4% during the year
ended March 1973, according to relimin4ry data from the nationwide
salary survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Increases
averaged 5.5% for clerical jobs and 5.4% for professional, admin-
istrative, and technical occupations. During the same period, the
,Consumer Price Index advanced 4.7%.
Additional indications of the trend of private sector executive salary
increases are evident by considering statistical information compiled
by Business Week Magazine. Its May 5, 1973 issue shows that pay
raises for top executives in 1972 more than matched the years 12.2%
rise in corporate profits, which hit a record $52.6 billion. Total com-
pensation, which includes bonuses, incentive payments, and profit
sharing, increased 13.5% in 1972 compared to 9.3% in 1971. Salaries
alone increased 10.1% in 1972 compared to 7% in 1971. Business
Week states that the highest paid executive in 1972 earned $889,963.
The May 15, 1972 issue of Forbes Magazine indicates that of the 774
chief executive officers whose companies rank high revenues, net
profits, total assets and stock market value, 770 executives had total
compensation in 1971 of over $48,000 with an overall range of $812,000
to $30,000. Six hundred and two executives earned in excess of $100,000
with the range of years served as chief executive going from one to
44 years.
Business Week indicates that the substantial increases registered
by top corporate managers in 1972 apparently exceeded the limits of
.5.5% on salaries and 0.7% on fringes that were imposed by Phase II
by virtue of an aggregate limitation theory. Thereby, individual salary
increases were permitted beyond the ceiling figures so long as the
average increase for the employee group of which they are a part did
not exceed the guidelines.
The August 18, 1973 issue of Business Week carried an article
based on Labor Department statistics concluding that the men who
head the nation's largest unions are generally paid as well as the
executives of small and medium-sized corporations. In 1972, three,
labor leaders earned over $100,000 in salaries and other compensation,
while 10 were paid $75,000 or more. In 36 major unions, 42 officers
,collected more than $50,000, and at least 23 others earned between
$35,000 and $50,000. Fifty-seven top labor leaders earned in excess of
.$42,500, with salaries ranging from $42,951 to $131,481.
The June 1973 Report of the Commission on Executive, Legislative,
and Judicial Salaries contains specific information regarding the per-
centage increases of pay raises throughout the public and private
.sector based on Bureau of Labor Statistics. Percentage changes in
.total compensation paid to top executives by industry from 1967-71
,averaged 20.3%. Pay trends (below executive levels) for production
and nonsupervisory workers during 1967-71 increased an average of
29.5%. Union hourly wage rates increased an average of 38.2%.
Urban public teachers salaries increased an average of 31%. Urban
firemen and policemen salaries increased an average of 36% and 35%
respectively. School superintendents being paid in excess of $36,000
realized an average percentage increase of 31.4%. State Governors in
.all 50 states realized an average percentage increase of 20.9%. State
government executives consisting of the top 5 administrative officials
in 15 states increased an average of 24.1%. Presidents of universities
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : q~A-RDP75B00380R000500130003-4
whose 1972 salary was $36,000 or more realized an average salary
increase of 19.8%. City and county managers of jurisdictions ranging
in population from 100,000 to 1 million or more realized an average
salary increase of 22.5%. The average salaries of state employees,
increased an average of 28.9%.
The Commission's report indicates that since 1969, the date of the
last pay raise for members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial
branches, that inflation has been severe. The Consumer Price Index
compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has risen from 106.7 in
January, 1969 to 127.7 in January 1973. During those years, consumer
prices rose 20%. The Consumer Price Index as documented by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the index has gained sig-
nificantly since 1969.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500130003-4
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000500130003-4
N1, ~F COC tt')OO~^C
O.a04 fl 0flrufi~M
.N+~t10 ~1'~ COmOMM
O NCO C>O m
d'OOCp001q'~ COM.yON
.-CNTWN i Nu'f COVN
p ~CDN Qrn Cn~Oi ct
NCfi ~l"M
c.enNN-
ai,-~ ai of
rn m o m ~
LLO- ,r1! 1 CO m MNh
[P V'OONO ,00 z5--
o c'IIe OQSOOC~
O
K a
~' II
u"f0 C0lm
~4nooi
?.~. ~+~.M-
OOn'a .+
SCCC CCr
?)0101?-'
00NOCH f,
M Op~N~
COONM00
1p.-i tCI UJ tV
0
1,00MNCO
~OCONM
VCOCOOm
.. NCb00m
m
a
CDC,DOM1
C 0C OCO
C6 Lci Lr; Lr;
~titi~r~. ~
L6 -4 -4 (6-4
pNti?~rN-1
40
W
NeYti~d'
COOOMCm
0U
y>tiCON
p~~~ti
COO1000000
m m m 0 ~
not CDm0
., CO1, m U'
90.OCQO
'050,0 OO
COT,a NCVM USO0N00COC
Lei: NMao r;-i L6 r-: C'J OCC;M
.t COn N.r OCD CpMM